Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Ross AND CROMARTY COUNTY COUNCIL (KYLE OF LOCHALSH FISHERY PIER) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

DUNDEE HARBOUR AND TAY FERRIES ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read a Second time; to be considered Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH (MIGRATION STATISTICS)

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures showing the number of emigrants from the United Kingdom to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa in each of the years 1934 to 1938, 1946 to 1949, and to the latest available date in 1950.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Russell: Do not the figures show that, taking the post-war years as a whole, there has been far more emigration than before the war, and that any recent falling off in emigration to Canada cannot possibly be due to full employment?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asked that certain figures should be published, and he must not make insinuations.
Following are the figures:
EMIGRANTS OF BRITISH NATIONALITY TRAVELLING DIRECT BY SEA FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM TO CANADA, AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND AND SOUTH AFRICA


Year
Country of Future Permanent Residence*


CANADA
AUSTRALIA
NEW ZEALAND
SOUTH AFRICA †


1934
2,167
4,572
1,191
3,392


1935
2,175
4,552
1,440
4,994


1936
2,281
4,096
1,462
5,010


1937
2,850
4,122
1,981
5,577


1938
3,367
5,472
2,425
6,003


1946
52,479
9,592
5,428
11,127


1947
22,960
13,012
5,918
26,142


1948
34,487
34,445
6,927
32,232


1949
20,762
53,059
9,261
15,283


1950 (Jan.-June)
7,307
28,620
5,468
4,917


NOTES:


* Residence for a year or more is treated as permanent residence for the purposes of this classification.


† Includes Union of South Africa, South-West Africa, Southern Rhodesia, and the High Commission 
Territories of Basutoland, the Bechuanaland Protectorate and Swaziland. Separate figures for the Union of South Africa are not 
available.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Embossed Crockery

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether permission may now be given to official bodies, such as county, borough and district councils, to have their crest embossed on crockery ordered for use in their own establishments.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): An embossed crest on plain crockery produced by the action of the mould is permitted. If, however, the hon. Member is referring to coloured crests involving a decorating process, I could not agree to the diversion of skilled labour from production for export.

Mr. Hirst: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a very limited concession for which I am asking, and that for many years there has been little outward and visible sign in mayoral, aldermanic and district council parlours of those things which we expect to find there, particularly when entertaining foreign guests?

Mr. Wilson: The pottery manufacturers have always put to me strongly that any change of this kind would lead to a direct loss of dollar exports.

Newsprint Exports, Malaya

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a larger quantity of British newsprint from the lower priced export surplus available to newspapers in Malaya in 1951.

Mr. H. Wilson: The whole of the 100,000 tons to which His Majesty's Government has limited exports from the mills in 1951, is already committed. In its allocation, I took full account of representations made both on behalf of the Colonies, and of other parts of the Commonwealth.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does not that mean that the representations have been ineffective? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that Malaya, which is going through a frightful emergency, needs paper at the right price? In view of the dollars earned by the Colony, would not he consider this matter in the light of existing circumstances?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir, the representations were by no means ineffective. It would only be possible to increase further the newsprint allocation for Malaya if we were able to reduce other exports.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in considering allocations as between the particular Colonies in other parts of the sterling area, any extra weight was given to Malaya, because it is the only part of the Empire now at war?

Mr. Wilson: We were guided by the Colonial Office in this respect; they gave us their view on shipments to particular Colonies.

Air Commodore Harvey: I beg to give notice that, as the right hon. Gentleman

has given a very unsatisfactory reply. I shall endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early date.

Film Finance Corporation (Loan)

Colonel Ropner: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the amount of the grant or loan made recently by the Film Finance Corporation to the Association of Cinematograph and Allied Technicians.

Mr. H. Wilson: I cannot give information about the Corporation's day-to-day business; and the Corporation explained, in their first Annual Report, why they themselves withhold detailed information about their loans.
I should, however, correct what appears to be a misapprehension in the hon. and gallant Member's Question; a loan has been made not to the Association of Cinematograph and Allied Technicians, but to the film-producing company called A.C.T. Films Limited.

Colonel Ropner: While welcoming any assistance for the production of films in this country, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any truth in the statement which appeared in an official publication of the Labour Party under the heading "Labour has a direct stake in this film"? If that statement is true will he ensure that in future public funds are not used for party purposes?

Mr. Wilson: I am not aware of the quotation to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred. My interpretation is that it has reference to the fact that this particular film is being organised by a company set up by the trade unions concerned. It is not a question of party purposes.

Mr. Shepherd: Is it not true that there are more Communists associated with this venture than members of the Labour Party?

Utility Cloth

Mr. John Rodgers: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the quality of utility cloth 207 differs from the quality two years ago.

Mr. H. Wilson: The maximum price for cloth to which the specification No. 207 may be applied has not been raised


during the past two years, despite considerable increases in the price of raw wool and in other costs. Consequently, the quality of the cloth is lower than it was then, but it is not practicable to say in general terms how much lower. Cloth of the quality which was sold two years ago as 207 can now be obtained under the specification No. 211.

Mr. Rodgers: Since the public are not aware of this debasement, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he is taking part in the perpetration of a fraud on the public?

Mr. Wilson: Certainly not. It was announced at the time that we were not going to allow prices to rise as much as they would have risen without control, and it was made clear that there would be some debasement of quality.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman read, and will he ask his colleagues in the Government to read, the leading article in the "Daily Mail" this morning, headed "The Great Illusion"?

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with the quality of utility cloth No. 207.

Mr. Macdonald: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that for the last three months it has been impossible to produce the most expensive Scottish woollen utility cloth, 227C, from poorest carpet wools, and as wool and yarn stocks are being used up rapidly with the result that serious unemployment is threatened, what action he is taking to increase ceiling prices for current utility categories or to issue new categories.

Mr. H. Wilson: Discussions have taken place with the manufacturers on their proposals for increases in the maximum prices for utility wool cloths—including the woollen cloth 227C—to take account of the rise in the world price of raw wool. I hope to make an announcement shortly.

Mr. Macdonald: In view of the rapid rise in raw material prices, is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to review the utility prices at shorter intervals?

Mr. Wilson: The industry applied for this increase on 27th October, which was some little time after the increase in prices.

Squadron Leader Burden: If it is necessary to include fibre in woollen cloth,

will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a ticket is attached to the garment so that the public may be informed that it is not pure wool?

Mr. Wilson: That is another question.

Strategic Raw Materials

Mr. Walter Fletcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will ensure that adequate attention is being given to the safeguarding of stocks of strategic raw materials, in view of the necessity of their dispersion from vulnerable dock areas and the possibility of sabotage.

Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman make certain that this matter is taken in hand soon, and before any emergency arises, in view of the fact that on one occasion during the war nearly half the hops of the country were destroyed by one bomb?

Mr. Wilson: This is being treated as a matter of urgency; I agree with the hon. Member's view about its importance.

Cotton Industry

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to take any additional steps to assist and stimulate the provision of new buildings and equipment for the cotton industry.

Mr. H. Wilson: It was made clear, when the Cotton Spinning (Re-equipment Subsidy) Act, 1948, was passed, that the assistance to be given to the spinning section was of a special nature and was intended to be part of a co-operative effort to place that section on a sound footing. I do not think any other measure of financial assistance is now required.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the right hon. Gentleman bearing in mind the fact that the time-limit for the present scheme has nearly expired, and that to formulate plans for the future it is necessary to begin thinking now, as it takes a considerable time to put a scheme into effect?

Mr. Wilson: The time-limit has been already extended. I was hoping that people in Lancashire were thinking about the future many years ago and were not waiting until 1950.

Domestic Clothing

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that adequate supplies of raw materials are available to meet the domestic clothing needs and to fulfil export requirements.

Mr. H. Wilson: Our textile industries are very largely dependent on imported raw materials. I cannot give a categorical assurance for the future before we have concluded discussions with certain producing countries, although supplies are assured for a considerable time ahead.

Mr. Osborne: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is not considering the re-imposition of clothes rationing in the near future?

Mr. Wilson: I have already made a statement to that effect.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that a very high proportion of the stocks of cotton in the country is practically unspinnable?

Mr. Wilson: I do not agree with that statement but the spread of the stocks among different grades and types has been very much taken into account in our representations to the United States.

Mr. Assheton: How much of the stock of raw cotton is unspinnable and unlikely to be of any use to the Lancashire cotton trade?

Mr. Wilson: I should require notice of that, but I can say that the stocks are not as well balanced as we should like them to be. That is why we need more from the United States.

Consumer Advice Centre

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to give further information concerning the establishment of a consumer advice centre.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am afraid I cannot add at present to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary during the debate on this subject on 28th July last.

Miss Burton: While noting that reply and realising that a considerable amount of work is involved, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend does not think that

eight months is rather a long time for his Department to be working on the details of this proposal? Will he hasten matters a little?

Mr. Wilson: We have pushed on with all possible expedition, but we have had other things of perhaps greater importance to look at in connection with consumer protection.

Nylon Stockings

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will direct a bonus issue of nylons to shopkeepers throughout Britain during the Christmas season.

Mr. H. Wilson: No, Sir. I do not control the distribution of nylon stockings, and it is for the manufacturers to plan their home market deliveries as they think best.

Mrs. Mann: Can my right hon. Friend advise manufacturers that there is not a British husband who can buy a pair of nylons for his wife? Is it not grossly unfair that only foreigners can appear with glamorous nylons? Does it not place British men at a great disadvantage?

Mr. Wilson: Although the shortage of nylons is extremely serious, as we all realise, due to the fact that we have to export so many of them, I think my hon. Friend is under-estimating the fairly considerable number of nylons supplied to the home market this year.

Carpets (Retail Margins)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the President of the Board of Trade why, by Statutory Instruments 1704 and 1707, 1950, he reduced the margin allowed to retailers on the sale of carpets; and whether he is satisfied that such margins will be adequate to permit the maintenance of proper wage levels for the employees of carpet retailers.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the President of the Board of Trade why, in view of greatly increased costs, the price margins on carpets have been reduced for retailers by Statutory Instruments 1704 and 1707, 1950.

Mr. H. Wilson: I have reduced the percentage margin allowed on retail sales of carpets because it is in the public


interest that the retail prices should not rise by more than is necessary to give the traders a fair return. An increase in manufacturers' prices, due to increased raw material costs, is no reason for retailers to have increased cash margins. As regards the wages of the retailers' employees, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 5th December to the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams).

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how he satisfied himself, in this intricate matter, that he had come to the right decision? In particular, will he say whether he consulted the trade associations concerned?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. We were in consultation with the trades concerned. As in all these matters of price control, we get from them their full figures on costings to satisfy ourselves that there is a reasonable return, and no more than a reasonable return.

Squadron Leader Burden: Is it not a fact that these retailers are not allowed any increase in cash margins if prices rise, and that Purchase Tax has been charged on the increased cost of carpets?

Mr. Erroll: Will the Minister say how retailers are to finance their stocks at the new higher prices if they are not to have the money?

Mr. Wilson: This is a question of the cash margins on actual sales. A fair number of goods the retailers are now selling are increasing their turnover, and that in itself increases the amount of cash.

Indonesia (Trade Agreements)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade what trade agreements are in existence or contemplated with Indonesia.

Mr. H. Wilson: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to trade arrangements between Indonesia and the United Kingdom. Discussions took place in London in March, this year, with representatives of the Government of Indonesia, and the probable course of trade between the two countries during the calendar year 1950 was reviewed. The arrangements agreed for 1950 provided that foodstuffs and other goods would be available for export from Indonesia to the United Kingdom to

the approximate value of £12 million, and that the Indonesian authorities would grant quotas for imports from the United Kingdom to a total of £7.2 million. The question of making corresponding arrangements for 1951 is under consideration.

Mr. Davies: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether it is not a fact that Indonesia might be a possible source of supply for extra tea, so that ultimately we might abolish the tea ration?

Mr. Wilson: Tea is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food. We are, in fact, importing more foodstuffs from Indonesia now, and we hope to increase them still further.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the agreement entered into as regards exports from this country to Indonesia has been carried out?

Mr. Wilson: I should want notice of that question in order to go into individual commodities, but the one or two representative commodities I have a note of here show that Indonesia has allowed more goods into that country than the quota promised.

War Material (Export)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the fact that the United States Government has stopped the export of war material to China, Hong Kong and Macao, he will take similar action in Britain.

Mr. H. Wilson: Exports of war material to China are already subject to control both in the United Kingdom and in Hong Kong. Goods consigned to China via Macao are covered by these controls.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he told me on 5th December, in answer to a Question, that 1,500 tons of the best Malayan rubber had been exported to the Soviet Union? What is the good of sending the Prime Minister to Ottawa if the Cabinet are not backing him up to the full?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member will realise that, in the debate on 18th September, not only Members on this side, but his own leaders made it quite clear that they were opposed to a total blockade of


trade with the Soviet Union, and that rubber was specifically mentioned as something that should not be controlled.

Sir W. Smithers: I did not say so.

Traders' Price Margins

Sir Richard Acland: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications have been made in the last 12 months to his Department by private traders or associations of private traders for permission to charge increased maximum prices, or increased maximum trading margins; how many of these applications have been refused, how many agreed to, and how many agreed to in modified form; and if he has estimates of how much the extra cost to the consumer would have been if those which have been refused or agreed in modified form had been agreed in full.

Mr. H. Wilson: No record has been kept of the very considerable number of applications from traders for increased maximum prices or margins which have been refused, or allowed in full, or allowed in modified form. The Board of Trade, in the last 12 months, have made about 150 orders increasing maximum prices in response to traders' applications, after close examination of the relevant facts and figures. In many cases the increases given were less than those which the traders had sought; but I cannot estimate how much the extra cost would have been to consumers if all the applications had been granted in full.

Sir R. Acland: Would it be likely to run into £100 million or so?

Mr. Wilson: It would be impossible to estimate, but the number of applications for price increases this year must have run into thousands.

Tinplate Exports

Mr. Greville Howard: asked the President of the Board of Trade the percentage of the total production of tinplate of the quality used for canning which has been exported in the last six months; and in what proportion this percentage is allocated to the countries concerned.

Mr. H. Wilson: No official figures are available, but I understand that deliveries of tinplate of all grades in the six months ended 30th September were 316,000 tons. During the same period, 127,000 tons, or

about 40 per cent., were exported; but not all of this was of a quality suitable for can making. With the hon. Member's permission, I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing how these exports were distributed between countries.

Mr. Howard: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether canners have been told that no further tinplate is available for them?

Mr. Wilson: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food, who has to deal with the position of the home canners.

Mr. Harrison: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any possibility of restriction in the amount of canned foodstuffs because of the restriction on tinplate supplies?

Mr. Wilson: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food, but it is true that tinplate for the home canning industry is extremely short and has been severely restricted.

Mr. Baldwin: In view of the fact that English fruit canners have been advised of a lesser supply of tinplate for next year, will the right hon. Gentleman take care that our tin is not sent to countries abroad, in order to bring back tinned fruit while our own fruit is rotting on the ground?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. The supply position is very difficult indeed, but we shall attempt to get a fair distribution as between the home and export markets.
Following is the table:


UNITED KINGDOM EXPORTS OF TINPLATE


April—September, 1950



Tons


Union of South Africa
10,663


British East Africa
1,982


Pakistan
3,962


Malaya
4,298


Australia
33,367


New Zealand
9,140


Other Comonwealth Countries
12,529


Irish Republic
2,586


Soviet Union
—


Norway
1,869


Denmark
4,248


Spain
1,269


Egypt
1,643


Iran
3,457


Brazil
1,031


Uruguay
727


Argentine Republic
16,071


Other Foreign Countries
17,883


Total
126,725

Pencils

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value and quantity of pencils imported from France in the first 10 months of 1950; and the corresponding figures for exports to France.

Mr. H. Wilson: Thirty-five thousand, seven hundred gross pencils of wood, valued at £39,000, were imported from France during the first 10 months of this year compared with exports to that country of 1,400 gross, valued at £2,300. Three thousand, five hundred gross pencils of other materials valued at £10,900, were also imported from France in this period. Exports of these types of pencil were negligible.

Mr. Russell: Is it not a fact that France places a strict limit on imports of pencils from this country whereas we place no limit on imports from France? Cannot this discrimination be removed?

Mr. Wilson: It is true that we have liberalised in the matter of the import of pencils and that France has not. I would hope that this matter might be taken care of in the further extension of liberalisation by certain European countries in the next few weeks.

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of wood for manufacturing pencils was imported from dollar sources in the first 10 months of 1950; and what proportion this was of the industry's total requirements.

Mr. H. Wilson: Wood for the manufacture of pencils is not separately distinguished in the trade returns of the United Kingdom.

FAIR GROUNDS (ACCIDENTS)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the recent fatal accidents on fair grounds; and if he will introduce legislation to enable him to take action to prevent a repetition of the defects which have caused the loss of life.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I have heard of three such accidents this year in which three persons were fatally injured.

Reports before me suggest that in one case there was structural defect in a machine, in another ineffective maintenance, and in the third case no defect of machinery or of maintenance occurred. I doubt if legislation could effectively prevent such accidents which, I am glad to say, are relatively very few.

Mr. Shepherd: Is it not a fact that no one is responsible for supervising fairs in any way whatsoever, whereas there is investigation following road and factory accidents? What action does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take?

Mr. Ede: The figures I have given indicate that the problem is not very great, and I cannot see on whom the responsibility for inspecting these machines should be placed.

BUSES, LONDON (TRAFFIC SIGNALS)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the extent to which buses and trolley-buses in the London area ignore traffic signals; and what action he proposes to take to ensure that passenger service drivers observe the same rules as others.

Mr. Ede: The police have standing instructions to deal with such cases which come to their notice. These offences are not confined to any particular class of driver, and the Commissioner of Police is not in a position to say whether the record of bus drivers in this respect is better or worse than that of other drivers.

Brigadier Medlicott: Quite apart from the drivers who take no notice of lights, what is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about conductors who take no notice of passengers on the footpath?

Mr. Ede: There is power to deal with them.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the standard of driving of bus and trolley-bus drivers in London is very much superior to that of private drivers?

Mr. Ede: I was very much surprised to find that this particular type of driver was picked out for this Question, because in my experience, especially having regard


to the size of the vehicle that has to be driven, such drivers seem to be most considerate.

CIVIL DEFENCE (ANIMALS)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made or are contemplated to deal with the protection or humane destruction of animals in the scheme for Civil Defence.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I am considering this together with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Later the veterinary profession and the appropriate voluntary societies will be consulted.

Sir T. Moore: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in framing the instructions, the chaos that existed at the beginning of the last war through lack of foresight in issuing the necessary instructions?

Mr. de Freitas: That is being considered at the moment.

Mr. H. Hynd: Will my hon. Friend also try to avoid bringing about indiscriminate slaughter of household pets, such as happened when the last air raids took place?

Mr. de Freitas: Yes, Sir.

SUMMER TIME, 1951

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will be able to make an announcement on the introduction of Summer Time in 1951.

Mr. Ede: This question is under consideration and I hope to make an announcement very shortly.

Captain Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a firm assurance now that there will be no mention of double Summer Time in 1951 when he makes his announcement?

Mr. Ede: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman had better wait for the announcement.

TAXICAB FARES, LONDON

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement as to the result of his recent decision to raise the fares for taxicabs in the London area.

Mr. Ede: I have not sufficient information to enable me to make any statement on this matter.

Sir T. Moore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have information on the subject? Will he confirm or deny that tips have been reduced to balance the increased charges?

Mr. Ede: The hon. and gallant Gentleman represents a Scottish constituency, and I should have thought he would be more expert in the matter than I am.

NATURALISED CITIZENS (CONVICTIONS)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider withdrawing naturalisation papers from people who have been convicted of offences against the laws of this country.

Mr. Ede: The British Nationality Act, 1948, enables me to deprive a naturalised person of his citizenship if within five years of becoming naturalised he has been sentenced to a term of not less than 12 months' imprisonment, and if I am satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that he should continue to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Brigadier Clarke: I did not ask a Question about a specific person, and I did not understand what the Minister said. I wanted to know if he would withdraw naturalisation papers from anyone who is convicted of an offence in this country. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a particular case.

Mr. Ede: I am not responsible for the hon. and gallant Gentleman's understanding, but if he would take some advice about the answer I have given he will find that his Question has been answered.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many times this action has been taken in the last five or 10 years?

Mr. Ede: No action has been taken in any case in the last 10 years.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Clay Tile Manufacture

Mr. Frederic Harris: asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to encourage increased use of the clay tile manufacturing facilities in this country.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Bevan): It is left to local authorities to specify such materials as they think fit for their housing schemes. These include clay roofing tiles, provided the cost and quality are satisfactory.

Damaged House, Clapham

Mr. Sidney Marshall: asked the Minister of Health what amount was licensed to be spent on the rebuilding of 20 Cedars Road, Clapham, S.W.4.

Mr. Bevan: So far as I am aware this house was not destroyed, so that no question of rebuilding has arisen.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that a considerable amount of bomb damage was suffered by this building and that a considerable amount of money has been spent on reconstruction up to roof level? This is a building which could house many families; it has been allowed to remain derelict for several years and is fast falling into decay.

Mr. Bevan: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was concerned with repairs, and so I armed myself with information about them. I understand that licences to the value of £303 have been issued. I will make further inquiries into what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Police Accommodation

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the shortage of accommodation for members of the Police Force, and in view of the fact that the police are a building authority, he will grant licences direct to that authority.

Mr. Bevan: Houses to be erected by a police authority with the approval of the Home Office do not require a licence.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in many cases the provision of much needed accommodation for the police has been taken out of the quota of local authorities, which makes their task much more difficult?

Mr. Bevan: It is obvious that if we have a national housing programme we have to share it among the various applicants for houses. Otherwise, every additional application will be an addition to the programme.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that local authorities are not forced to give up any part of their housing programme to the police, and only do so of their own accord?

Mr. Bevan: I think that it will be found that the quota of local authorities is not reduced in this way, and that it is a national allocation.

Allocation, Manchester

Mr. L. M. Lever: asked the Minister of Health if he will consider the granting of an additional allocation of houses to the City of Manchester for 1951, when good progress has been made with the existing allocation.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

King's College Hospital (Deaf Aids)

Miss Hornsby-Smith: asked the Minister of Health when the non-priority waiting list for deaf aids was closed at King's College Hospital; when it is likely to be reopened and the estimated number of patients certified by their local hospitals as requiring a deaf aid who are waiting to go on this list and be fitted by King's College Hospital.

Mr. Bevan: The answer to the first part of the Question is, May, 1949, and to the last, 2,110. I am informed that from next month the waiting list system


is to be re-organised so as to ensure that a fair proportion of patients from each local hospital concerned are fitted each month.

Muscular Atrophy

Mr. Yates: asked the Minister of Health how many children in this country are suffering from muscular distrophy and progressive muscular atrophy; and what steps have been taken to improve research into these diseases.

Mr. Bevan: The numbers are not accurately known, but are not believed to be large. A new investigation at a northern teaching hospital is being undertaken, in addition to the established research unit in London.

Mr. Yates: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any evidence to date of a case of this disease having been cured, and, whether, in view of the large number of cases in the Midlands and some distressing ones in Birmingham, he would consider opening a research station for the Midlands?

Mr. Bevan: I would not like to answer the first question in the affirmative or in the negative and so give rise either to undue pessimism or optimism. It is not always advisable to say that there has been a cure in cases of this kind. There may have been a slight amelioration, and the trouble may recur.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Is it not a fact that a vast deal can be done for these sad cases if, and only if, they are dealt with very early?

Mr. Bevan: Yes. Sir. and that is why I was anxious not to give a false impression.

Mr. Yates: Would my right hon. Friend answer my second question, which was whether, in view of the large number of cases in the Midlands, he would consider the opening of a research centre?

Mr. Bevan: It would not necessarily add to the facilities available, unless the research centre was adequate.

Hospital Registrars

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Health what further economies he proposes to make in the Health Service between now and the end of the financial

year; and how far they will necessitate disposing of the services of further registrars.

Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to Questions on 30th November.

Brigadier Clarke: Does the Minister realise that the economies are causing the greatest concern among registrars at the present time?

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read my answer—

Brigadier Clarke: I heard it.

Mr. Bevan: Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman has obviously not understood it.

Mr. Snow: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind, when he does effect this economy of registrars, that the full impact should not be laid at the doors of registrars in non-teaching hospitals, where there is a great deal of talent?

Oral Answers to Questions — X-Ray Facilities,

North Riding

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that there is a serious lack of facilities for X-ray epilation in the North Riding of Yorkshire; and what steps he is taking to put this matter right.

Mr. Bevan: I am informed that the regional hospital board are considering extra facilities at Scarborough to supplement those now at York.

Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the North Riding Education Committee, in their last report, said that there is a very great spate of ringworm in the schools in that area, owing to the lack of these facilities?

Mr. Bevan: I do not think that it is due to lack of these facilities.

Tuberculosis Treatment, Maidenhead

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the serious lack of adequate facilities for the emergency treatment of women tuberculosis cases in the Maidenhead area; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this situation.

Mr. Bevan: It is hoped to open a new ward at Taplow in the new year, for women patients suffering from tuberculosis. The local chest physician can at present nominate a number of such patients for admission to Pinewood Sanatorium, and others can be admitted elsewhere in the region, in their turn.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, except for the one ward in the Taplow Hospital which is now available for male tuberculosis cases, there are no facilities for the emergency treatment of women? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this complete lack of adequate facilities is causing very great anxiety to many relatives in that area?

Mr. Bevan: The absence of accommodation in the hospitals is causing great anxiety to all of us. All I can say is that we are adding to the number of nurses day by day.

Mr. Gerald Williams: Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider sending these women to Switzerland, where ample nursing accommodation is available?

Mr. Bevan: Hon. Members opposite are always making general allegations about expenditure upon the National Health Service, and yet are always asking for more money to be spent.

Mr. Nally: So that the House may properly understand the facts in this matter, will my right hon. Friend circulate in HANSARD a precise picture of the tuberculosis facilities that existed not only in Maidenhead but in the county exactly 11 years ago?

Mr. Bevan: I have made a number of statements about tuberculosis facilities, and I always ask the House and the country to understand that the larger number of cases notified at the moment is not evidence of retrogression but of progression. We are discovering them earlier, and the fatalities are being reduced.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Surely the Minister will agree that the situation is very distressing indeed, that there is a shortage of accommodation, and that accommodation in Switzerland exists and should be used?

Mr. Bevan: There is nothing more distressing than the fact that the incidence of tuberculosis was not discovered earlier.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I must point out that the original Question dealt with Maidenhead only and not with the whole country.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: On a point of order. Are not questions whether the shortage of accommodation in Maidenhead could be reduced by using the accommodation in Switzerland germane to the subject?

Mr. Speaker: I should have thought that they were quite outside it.

Kingston Victoria Hospital

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Health whether he has now considered the proposal of the British Medical Association that a public inquiry be held in connection with the dispute as to the future use of the Kingston Victoria Hospital; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Bevan: The future of this hospital has been very fully and carefully reviewed, both by the regional board and by my own Department, as well as having been the subject of a debate in this House. I certainly do not think that the proposed inquiry would either be appropriate or would add to our knowledge, and I see no reason to intervene.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the major reasons why local opinion feels that injustice has been done is that no opportunity has yet been given for local opinion to express itself directly to those responsible? Would not a solution such as that suggested by the British Medical Association give an opportunity, so far denied, for local opinion to express itself?

Mr. Bevan: I do not believe that there exists in Great Britain any better court of inquiry than the House of Commons itself, especially on a matter of this kind. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the matter has not been adequately ventilated he can seek further opportunities.

Mr. Hastings: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the opinion of experts in hospital management is much more important than local opinion?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, of course. This is the view which has been taken by the management committee and the hospital regional board, who have had all the facts before them, and, as I have said, the House of Commons as well. If the matter is not yet sufficiently ventilated I shall be most happy to recount the facts again.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Is it not true that the Minister of Health, throughout the whole of the passage of the National Health Service Bill, advocated again and again the establishment of general practitioner hospitals, similar to this one at Kingston-upon-Thames, and that ever since the Act was passed he has closed one general practitioner hospital after another?

Mr. Bevan: The statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is as prejudiced and as inaccurate as most of his statements.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Following the twice-given invitation of the Minister, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter again.

COUNTY COUNCIL STAFF, DURHAM (TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Health when, and in what form, he represented to the Durham County Council the undesirability of their proposal to make trade union membership a condition of employment; and whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the correspondence between himself and that council on this subject.

Mr. Bevan: On 6th December, 1946, in a circular sent to all local authorities, and on 17th November in a letter addressed to the county council. I am sending copies of these communications to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIALISED INDUSTRIES

Appointments (White Paper)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Prime Minister if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT an up-to-date comprehensive list of all members appointed to central and regional

nationalised boards of a commercial character, with details of individual salaries, pensions and expenses allowed, together with a separate list showing all individuals holding more than one appointment and what those appointments are.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. I have arranged for the information to be published in the form of a White Paper, which will be available shortly.

Mr. Erroll: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be published, so that we may look out for this interesting information?

Mr. Morrison: I hope it will be before the Christmas Recess. I cannot be quite sure, but I believe it will be.

Mr. Woodburn: When my right hon. Friend publishes the White Paper, will he include the salaries of people in private industry who are doing similar work and thus show how many people are making great sacrifices to serve the public interest?

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise out of this Question.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: asked the Lord President of the Council upon what aspects of the annual reports of the nationalised industries Ministers will in future answer Questions.

Mr. H. Morrison: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer of 27th November to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), when I explained the principles which govern the answering of Questions relating to socialised industries. The same principles apply to Questions arising out of annual reports as to other Questions, and, as I explained in my answer to the hon. Members for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) and Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) on 5th April, Ministers will answer Questions involving their own responsibilities in connection with annual reports. These responsibilities are laid down in the statutes. Broadly, it is their duty to lay the report before Parliament, and they have certain responsibilities for the form of accounts.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect his statement of 25th October last when he published what he claimed to be a comprehensive list of matters upon which Ministers would be prepared to answer Questions ranging from research to annual reports? Is it not a fact that all Ministers can, and do, evade Questions on the Order Paper by disclaiming responsibility and, at the same time, ensure that no further Questions on the same subject can be asked? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman dropped the humbug of pretending that the nationalised industries are accountable through our normal democratic procedure of Question and answer in the House of Commons?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has the making of a first-class Hyde Park orator. I never did very well at that myself. The responsibility of the Minister in relation to the annual report is to lay it. To make the Minister responsible for everything that appears in the annual report would make him responsible for every detail of the management of the socialised industries—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nationalised industries."]—hon. Members may call them what they like; I will call them what I like, too—which would merely mean that the politicians were meticulously running these vast commercial undertakings.

Mr. Mikardo: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when the nationalisation Bills were passing through the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Socialisation."] I will call them what I like, too—the Opposition continually protested that the Ministers were being given too much power over the corporations and demanded that the corporations should be free from day-to-day ministerial interference? How does he reconcile that with the attitude of the Opposition today?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I cannot reconcile it at all. How the Opposition do I have not the least idea.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, despite his replies, the situation is confusing? The Table is refusing to take numbers of Questions which ought to be within the purview of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Will he give

serious consideration, as was done in 1946, to the re-appointment of the Select Committee on Procedure and ask them to issue a short report on Questions after having heard evidence by the Lord President and other Ministers?

Mr. Morrison: I can assure the noble Lord that if he will study the various statements which I have made upon the matter he will find that the whole situation is as clear as daylight and that if he follows them he will be all right. I do not think it is part of his duty, in putting a supplementary question, to cast reflections on Mr. Speaker and the Table.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's last answer but one, is he aware that the objection is not to ministerial non-interference but to ministerial irresponsibility for interference?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Horses (Transport)

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Agriculture the result of his consultations with the British Transport Commission and the Road Haulage Association about the introduction of amendments to the Exportation and Transit of Horses Order, 1921, and the Transit of Animals (Amendment) Order, 1931, arising from the Report of the Rosebery Committee.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): Following consultations with the Ministry of Transport, the Railway Executive and the Road Haulage Association, an order to give effect to the recommendations of the Rosebery Committee concerning the transport of horses by rail and road has been drafted, and is now being circulated to those bodies for their final observations.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Can the Minister say if the orders will implement all the recommendations contained in sub-paragraphs (u) and (w) of the Rosebery Committee Report?

Mr. Williams: I cannot be sure offhand, but if the hon. Member will wait just a short time I think the order will be available and he will then be able to see what it contains.

Mr. Sutcliffe: If the orders implement those recommendations the Minister's action will be welcomed throughout the country.

Fertilisers (Prices)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the rising cost of fertilisers is making it difficult for some farmers to use as much as they would wish; and whether, in the interests of long-term agricultural production, he will either seek the restoration of the fertiliser subsidy or take such other steps as will bring the price down to the 1949 level.

Mr. T. Williams: I am aware that the rise in the price of fertilisers causes difficulties to some farmers, but the removal of the subsidy is a factor that was taken into account in fixing farmers' prices at the last February review and I can hold out no hope of the general fertiliser subsidy being restored. The new grants payable to farmers in respect of fertilisers used on grassland do, in fact, bring the cost of these down to or below the 1949 level.

Brigadier Medlicott: In view of the tendency for these prices to rise further, will the Minister give an assurance that special thought will be given to the problem in the next price review?

Mr. Paget: Would my right hon. Friend consider making some credit arrangements to enable farmers to spread the cost of fertilisers over the period in which they will get a return?

Mr. Williams: I am not at all sure that such an arrangement is necessary in 1950.

Mr. Nally: In dealing with this and associated matters, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of us on these benches consider that the subsidies already paid to farmers are more than generous?

Hostel, Birdingbury

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the accommodation available at the Birdingbury Agricultural Hostel, near Rugby; and how many persons are actually living there.

Mr. T. Williams: The Birdingbury hostel is at present equipped to accommodate 100 workers. The number now in the hostel is 95.

Mr. Johnson: While thanking my right hon. Friend, may I ask if he will advise the county committees to place any surplus accommodation at the disposal of workers other than farm workers, in view of the acute housing shortage in the neighbouring villages?

Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir, but I am not aware of any surplus space in this hostel, which is required for agricultural workers.

Smallholdings Committees

Mr. Gooch: asked the Minister of Agriculture if, before approving any future schemes put forward by county councils for the constitution of smallholdings committees, he will ensure that an increased number of farmworkers are asked to serve on the committees.

Mr. T. Williams: All the smallholdings committees which have already been set up under the Agriculture Act, 1947, include persons competent to express the views of the agricultural worker. In considering any future arrangements for the constitution of smallholdings committees submitted to me for approval, I will certainly continue to give careful consideration to the numbers of farmworkers proposed to be appointed by the smallholdings authority concerned.

Mr. Gooch: Does my right hon. Friend realise that these committees will be catering in the main for farmworkers, and does he consider that one or two farm-workers on a committee of 25 is adequate representation?

Mr. Williams: As my hon. Friend is aware, I have no power to lay down detailed constitutions for smallholdings committees. All that one can do, therefore, is to exercise what influence and persuasion I can with the smallholdings authorities, and so far at least two-thirds of the smallholdings committees that have been set up have two such representatives.

Wool (Price)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the amount paid to the British wool grower for the 1949


wool clip; and what was the price realised at the resale of this wool by his Department.

Mr. T. Williams: The total amount paid to growers in the United Kingdom for fleece wool of the 1949 clip was £6.3 million, which gave an average price of 26.24d. per lb. The price realised on the sale of this wool by public auction averaged 37.14d. per lb. after deducting costs of collection and sale.

Mr. Crouch: Is the Minister aware that had his Department not made such a huge profit on this wool, we should, by the spring of this year, have increased the quantity of mutton available to the housewife by a very considerable amount?

Mr. Williams: I am aware that the Government made a profit on the sale of last year's wool, but that was because the farmers preferred a guaranteed price, isolating them from wide fluctuations, to any market price that happened to be obtainable.

Mr. Baldwin: Will the Minister convey to his hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) that that transaction does not sound much like feather bedding or a subsidy for farmers?

Farm Mechanics

Mr. Gooch: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the great need for agricultural mechanics on British farms; and if he will introduce training schemes to combine knowledge of the soil and the machines.

Mr. T. Williams: I am aware of the need for farmworkers especially skilled in the use and maintenance of agricultural machinery. The primary responsibility for the provision of training lies with local education authorities, who receive grant-aid for such training. Guidance has been afforded them in Reports of the Joint Advisory Committee on Agricultural Education, which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education and I have commended to their attention and which local education authorities generally are known to be implementing so far as practicable. Training of this kind, both residential and part-time, is provided also by certain other bodies, and I am sending my hon. Friend details.

Mr. Gooch: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that when an unusual type of machine breaks down, a farmer often has to go many miles to find a man competent to put it right? Does he appreciate that many more trained mechanics on our farms would greatly assist food production?

Mr. Williams: Nothing would give me greater joy than if all the unions associated with the industry would combine for the purpose of providing an apprenticeship scheme.

Mr. Vane: Is the Minister aware that the best thing he can do to encourage a growth of the knowledge of agricultural mechanics is to ensure that the county agricultural executive committees do not keep unnecessarily large and now obsolescent machinery?

Mr. Williams: County agricultural executive committees are not keeping obsolescent machinery.

Winter Feedingstuffs, South Western Area

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now in a position to make a statement about additional winter feedingstuffs, particularly for the South-Western Counties.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now in a position to make a statement about extra feedingstuffs this winter for Cornwall.

Mr. T. Williams: No. Sir, but I hope to issue a statement very soon.

Mr. Crouch: Is the Minister aware of the acute shortage of proteins and in the general feedingstuffs position, particularly in the Western area, as a result of this year's disastrous harvest?

Mr. Marshall: Does the Minister's "very soon" mean before Parliament rises for the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Williams: I would not be sure, but it will be very soon.

Mr. Snadden: Is the Minister including Scotland in this statement?

Mr. Speaker: Scotland is not in the South-Western counties.

Grain Driers

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many grain driers were in operation in 1949; how many have been built in 1950; and how many are planned for 1951.

Mr. T. Williams: In 1949, 1,340 grain driers were in operation on farms in the U.K.; 290 were built in 1950, and it is expected that about another 290 will be built in 1951. In addition, there are 30 grain driers of larger capacity operated by the Ministry of Food, who expect to have a further six plants in operation in 1951. There is also a considerable number of grain driers operated by merchants and ultimate users of grain.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the more of these driers that can be built, the better we should like it, particularly in the Midlands, where we have such lovely English summers?

White Fish (Subsidy)

Mr. D. Marshall: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the continuance of the subsidy to certain classes of catchers of white fish and also to the pilchard fisheries.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir, I am not yet in a position to make a statement. The matter is now under examination.

Mr. Marshall: Will the Minister be able to make a statement before Parliament rises for the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Williams: Not necessarily.

Sir Ronald Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the increased carriage charges which fishermen who are far from their markets have to pay?

Mr. Williams: The Question does not say anything about transport.

Mr. Boothby: Will the Minister bear in mind that he cannot go on subsidising white fish and pilchards indefinitely unless he also subsidises herrings?

FLOODS, CATCLIFFE

Mr. David Griffiths: asked the Minister of Agriculture how far the work at the Catcliffe flooded area has developed; and when the scheme is likely to be completed.

Mr. T. Williams: My Department is considering a works scheme for the benefit of Catcliffe submitted by the Yorkshire Ouse River Board in October last. The work will not be undertaken, however, until the local authorities concerned are ready to proceed simultaneously with measures for pumping house sewage and surface water from the area to be protected.

Mr. Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this scheme has now been under consideration for a number of years, and will he consider giving a direction in this case because of the difficulties which have existed for a long time?

Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir, but I understand that drainage works alone are no solution for the problem of flooding at Catcliffe. I understand that if the Rotherham Rural District Council and the county council show signs of beginning their part of the work the river board are prepared to undertake work on their scheme as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Purchase Tax

Mr. Perkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he has received during the last financial year from Purchase Tax on tooth paste, tooth brushes, razor blades, combs, hair slides, shoe laces, clothes pegs, electric light bulbs, aspirins, hair nets, buttons, needles, toilet rolls, electric torches, wireless batteries, toys and hair cream, respectively; and whether he will consider abolishing Purchase Tax on these articles in order to reduce the cost of living.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Edwards): Traders are not required to furnish returns regarding the amounts of Purchase Tax collected in the detail which would be required to answer the question, and the information asked for is not therefore available. As regards the second part of the Question, I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Perkins: Why do the Government always automatically turn down every suggestion for reducing the cost of living?

Ecuador (Debts)

Mr. Henry Brooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether efforts are still being made to get Ecuador to agree to terminate the default on her external debt; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Edwards: Although His Majesty's Ambassador in Quito loses no opportunity of pressing the Ecuadorean Government to settle their debts, he has so far had no success.

Pensioners' Tobacco Tokens

Mr. Profumo: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will link tobacco tokens by number or name to the pensioners to whom they are issued, so that they can be cancelled if lost and new ones issued.

Mr. J. Edwards: No, Sir. This proposal would complicate the scheme and would make difficulties for tobacconists and pensioners, and the extra cost in both money and manpower would be out of proportion to any advantages.

Mr. Profumo: I do not see why any extra cost whatever in manpower and money should be involved. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what may appear to be of relatively little significance compared with the affairs of State is a matter of tremendous importance to a very hard pressed and harassed section of the community? Will he please urge his right hon. Friend to study this matter further?

Mr. Edwards: We have considered the matter very carefully and I assure the hon. Member that both manpower and money would be involved.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: In view of the Minister's inability to assist these people at all in this way, would he not give instructions for more relaxation of the rule whereby coupons that are lost can be replaced?

Mr. Edwards: I will examine that suggestion.

Empire Wines (Duty)

Mr. Nigel Fisher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider increasing the margin of preference for Empire wines and reducing the duty, particularly on Australian heavy

wines, so as to absorb some of the surplus production which was based upon the much greater pre-war imports into this country.

Mr. J. Edwards: Any increase in the present margins of preference in the rates of duty on wine would be contrary to the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. So far as the question of reducing the rates of wine duty is concerned, I am afraid that I cannot anticipate the Budget statement.

Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that before the war we took something like four-fifths of the Australian wine production, thus encouraging expansion in that industry, but that many small growers are now faced with ruin by the change of policy? Will the hon. Gentleman further bear in mind that we should really make Empire trade a two-way traffic and do the best we can to help these people in the Dominions and Colonies, who have always done so much to help us?

Mr. Edwards: I assure the hon. Member that we are fully aware of the circumstances, but I do not think that either he or anyone else would suggest that we could break the conditions of this general agreement.

Mr. Nicholson: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that owing to the general rise in duty, the preference rate is now infinitely smaller in proportion to the general duty than it was before the war, and that it is almost true to say that there is no useful preferential rate at all?

Squadron Leader Burden: Will the Minister take steps to ensure that in future no agreements are made with foreign Governments which restrict the free flow of Empire trade?

Mr. Edwards: I do not accept the suggestion that the free flow of Empire trade is being restricted.

Iron and Steel Corporation (Appointments)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the attempt of the Iron and Steel Corporation to recruit deputy-secretaries at salaries of £2,500 per annum and assistant-secretaries at salaries of £2,000 per annum for the declared purpose of running the industry


on Civil Service lines is having an adverse effect on the permanent Civil Service, since such individuals are few in number and already employed in Government Departments; and what action he proposes to take to safeguard the adequate staffing of the higher Civil Service.

Mr. J. Edwards: I am aware that the Iron and Steel Corporation have advertised two posts of deputy-secretary and three posts of assistant-secretary at the salaries named. I do not agree that this action is having an adverse effect upon the Civil Service. The last part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Erroll: Is the Minister willing to allow civil servants to take up these appointments if they wish to do so?

Mr. Edwards: I think that no real risk is caused to the Civil Service by these advertisements.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Are we to understand that the Government's contribution to the rearmament problem is to take the great and productive industry of steel and to run it on Civil Service lines?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Member is not to understand anything so irrelevant.

Troops, Malaya (Christmas Parcels)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to enable troops serving in Malaya to send gift parcels home for Christmas or the New Year duty free.

Mr. J. Edwards: With the exception only of tobacco, scent and liquor, presents to the total value of 10s. can be sent home by the Forces abroad free of Customs charges at any season of the year. This concession is in addition to gift parcels of foodstuffs weighing not more than 22lb. gross which are admitted free. My right hon. Friend does not think any further concession is called for.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: (by Private Notice) asked the Postmaster-General whether he will arrange for the concessions announced yesterday in respect of one postage-free Christmas parcel for each member of His Majesty's Forces serving in Korea to be similarly extended to members of His Majesty's Forces serving in Malaya.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): After consultation with the Departments concerned I desire to make the following statement.
In deciding upon the concession relating to one postage-free 3 lb. Christmas parcel to be sent exceptionally by air to members of the Forces in Korea, which I announced to the House last evening, consideration was given to the extraordinary measures that were felt to be warranted because the majority of the troops concerned embarked from this country too late in regard to the latest date of posting of surface-route parcels, and relatives would not have had full opportunity to send Christmas parcels by the normal route. The vast majority of the troops now in Malaya were there in time to allow members of the public in this country to post parcels by the surface route before the latest date of posting. The postage rates on these parcels embody quite generous concessions. Some troops have left this country for Malaya since the latest date of posting and 3 lb. Xmas parcels for them will be accepted under the same conditions as those which will be accepted for Korea.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Does the right hon. Gentleman really consider that the explanation he has just given, showing discrimination between British Forces serving in one theatre of war and British Forces serving in another theatre of war, when both are equally unpleasant, is at all adequate?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The point was that all the troops engaged in Malaya and Korea should have parcels at concessionary rates. In the case of Korea we could not do that because they had left before the last date of posting. In the case of Malaya the vast majority are in process of having the advantage of these concessionary rates, but there were a number of these men who left this country too late for that purpose and we have decided to allow them to have free parcels.

Mr. Churchill: What is the financial saving involved in this somewhat refined discrimination?

Mr. Ness Edwards: There is no saving at all because, normally, all the traffic goes by surface mail. What we are doing is lifting all this by air and transporting it to the Far East.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there were two omissions from his public announcement last night as reported this morning—the Far East Flying Boat Wing and the Royal Marine Commando which is now engaged in fighting its way out of encirclement in Korea? Will he make it clear that the concession applies to both?

Mr. Ness Edwards: All the Forces employed in Korean operations are included.

Brigadier Head: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is administratively possible for the Post Office to know who went to this area and when? Is it not a futile suggestion?

Mr. Ness Edwards: There are difficulties about this, but to do it at all, it is necessary to take some risk of abuse. I would rather take the risk of abuse and do it than not to do it.

Mr. Anthony Nutting: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer he has given, showing the discrimination in this matter, is one of the meanest answers ever given in this House? Will he please reconsider his attitude?

Mr. Ness Edwards: That is one of the meanest supplementary questions I have heard.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: What would be the additional cost if the concession which is now being made to certain troops in Malaya were extended to all the troops?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am afraid that I have not made the position clear. A substantial concession has been given to all the troops that were in Malaya in time for the receipt of parcels. They have already had the advantage of the concession. In regard to those who are now to get the special concession, they have not had an opportunity because they left this country after the date for the posting of Christmas parcels.

Mr. Churchill: If there is no serious financial cost involved, would it not be better to simplify the matter and treat all the same, having regard to the action extorted from the right hon. Gentleman yesterday?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I thought I was extending to all the troops the same type

of treatment and giving the same type of concession to everybody engaged in both these theatres. I do not think I ought to be pressed to give any more.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Does the concession we have heard of—a complicated and illusory concession—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—get over the fact raised in a Question by me recently that civilians can use the registered parcel post, whereas parcels to military personnel cannot be carried by that means?

Mr. Ness Edwards: That is covered. These men can get their parcels by airmail; there is no difficulty about that.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would it not be more simple to bring the troops home so that they can collect their Christmas parcels?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is there any practical difficulty about getting parcels out to troops in Malaya, or is the real objection of the right hon. Gentleman that they might get two parcels at concessionary rates?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, what I have tried to do is what is fair and equitable to all the troops who are involved. In this concession to the troops in Malaya, I have merely repeated the concession given in the case of Korea.

Mr. Hamilton: Had the Minister any indication that the matter was to be raised by the Opposition before it was raised from this side of the House yesterday?

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again on the Adjournment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House if he has any statement to make on the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 11TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Livestock Rearing Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution:
Remaining stages of the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Bill;
Motions to approve the Agriculture (Special Directions) (Maximum Area of Pasture) Extension of period Order, and a similar Order for Scotland.
TUESDAY, 12TH DECEMBER—A debate will take place on the Coal situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "On what?"] The coal situation, that will be a chance for hon. Members to get warmed up.
WEDNESDAY, 13TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Consideration of Amendments to the Restoration of Pre-War Trade Practices Bill; and to the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Bill, which are expected to be received from anothr place.
The business for Thursday, 14th December will be announced later.
If the necessary business has been disposed of, it is hoped to adjourn on Friday, 15th December, for the Christmas Recess until Tuesday, 23rd January.
As the House is aware, provision already exists for the House to be recalled if an earlier meeting should be necessary in the public interest.

Mr. Eden: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware—I know he is—that Tuesday's debate is to take place at the request of the Opposition, and we propose to put a Motion down so that the debate can take place?
In regard to Thursday, if it were for the convenience of the House—and that can be arranged through the usual channels—as presumably the Prime Minister will be making a statement to the House on his return, we had in mind that perhaps it might be convenient to have a general debate, not on the date of the statement but 48 hours later, or after some convenient interval, so that we may consider what the Prime Minister has to say before we have any formal debate upon it.

Mr. Morrison: On the first point, I note the intention of the Opposition. If the right hon. Gentleman will let us have that as soon as possible, we can examine it and see what is the best way to handle the matter. As to his second point about the statement of the Prime Minister on his return from Washington, and the de

sirability of a debate after a 48-hour interval, I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman. I should like it to happen so, but I cannot be sure on exactly what day the Prime Minister will return. If the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to agree, I think we must have a little elasticity about that point, and while the whole House will, I am sure, be glad to see the Prime Minister back, I am equally sure that we would not wish him to be rushed back if there was advantage to the public interest in his staying a little longer.

Mr. Eden: I quite agree. I am not suggesting rushing any one, but I also think that the House should not be rushed, and that after the Prime Minister has made his statement, it will be useful if we have an interval before we debate it.

Mr. Morrison: I am quite sympathetic to the point which the right hon. Gentleman is making, and I was not in any way criticising him or attacking him on his observation. I only wish to reserve the position because I cannot be sure exactly on which day the Prime Minister will come back.

INDIA, PAKISTAN AND CEYLON (STERLING BALANCES)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): I promised last week to make a further statement to the House about the recent discussions which we have had with the Governments of India, Pakistan and Ceylon on the special position of their sterling balances in relation to the period covered by the Colombo Plan for Cooperative Economic Development in South and South-East Asia.
The general basis of the proposed arrangements is that the sterling balances of the three Governments concerned should be reduced over the next six years, in the context of the Colombo Plan, to something like the amounts which they would wish to hold in any case as their normal reserves.
We have already been able to examine in some detail with India and Ceylon the use of their sterling balances in this way. As a result of this detailed examination, we have agreed in principle with both countries on the use to be made of the balances during the period of the Plan. Discussions are in progress with the


Government of Pakistan and it is hoped that an agreement can be reached at an early date. It is intended that in due course these arrangements should be the subject of formal agreements between ourselves and the three Governments concerned.
The agreement contemplated with India would provide fur transfers to their No. 1 (or free) Account whenever the latter falls below £30 million, with a transfer of up to £35 million in each of the six years beginning on 1st July, 1951. Provision would be made for a measure of flexibility from year to year in the size of transfers, and for full consultation between our two Governments to ensure the smooth working of the agreement.
The agreement contemplated with the Government of Ceylon would be on broadly similar lines. The intention is that under it the Government of Ceylon should be able to draw £21 million of their sterling balances during the period between 1st July, 1950, and 30th June, 1957. Transfers to the No. 1 (free) Account within this maximum would be made when the balances in the No. 1 Account fell below £12 million. Transfers in any one year would normally be limited to £3 million. As in the case of India, there would also be provision for flexibility and for consultation.
I hope that we are thus on the way to finding a solution which will be satisfactory to all parties concerned of this difficult question, which has been the subject of so much consideration and discussion since 1945.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: We frequently ask the Chancellor for as much information as possible on sterling balances, and we are therefore grateful for any advance information which he can give us. At the same time, I think he would agree that the statement he has made is of a very imprecise character, perhaps necessarily so at the moment. He says that the balances of the three Governments concerned
should be reduced to something like the amounts they would wish to hold in any case as their normal reserves.
Later, he makes further reservations. Accordingly, we had perhaps better refrain from any further comment until we have had an opportunity of studying the matter in greater detail, because the statement does not carry us very far.

Mr. Gaitskell: Until the agreements are signed and published we shall not have the full details, but I think that I have given the House a fairly clear idea of what these agreements will contain.

Mr. Churchill: Are we right in understanding that these are in fact arrangements for the repayment to these countries of British debts which were incurred by us in the process of defending them from invasion by Japan?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir. They are, of course, debts incurred during the war in that way, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the countries concerned look upon them very much as ordinary commercial debts, and they would certainly hope, and I should have thought we should encourage them to hope, that they would be able to draw on these balances to develop the economies which are so vividly described in the Colombo Plan report for the benefit of that part of the world.

Mr. Churchill: Surely some consideration should also be given to the fact that these debts were incurred for the defence of these countries, and that our right was always reserved until quite recently to make a counterclaim for the immense expense to which we were put? Surely these matters should be considered with a view to thinking sometimes of the interests of our own country?

Mr. Gaitskell: I do not consider that the interests of our own country would be well served by repudiating debts which we have incurred, or by cutting off badly needed supplies from that part of the world.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not a fact that we have always reserved the right to put in a counterclaim for the expenses or a portion of the expenses to which we were put, and that these counterclaims need to be considered not only against these countries but also against Egypt at a time when these settlements are being made?

Mr. Gaitskell: It was never considered that it would be either practicable or wise to pursue the matter of counterclaims.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not a fact that until quite recently that has always been maintained as the British position?

Mr. Gaitskell: That is certainly not the case. The Prime Minister made it perfectly plain on an earlier occasion that we did not consider it feasible to put in these counterclaims.

Mr. Churchill: Was not the Prime Minister a Member of the Government which definitely laid down the principle of reserving the right to make a counterclaim?

Mr. Gaitskell: The Prime Minister also happens to be the Prime Minister of this Government, and has the right to make the decision.

Mr. Norman Smith: Would not the Chancellor agree that this arrangement is part of the healthy process of seeking to equalise standards of living as between the advanced industrial countries and the less advanced countries of Asia? Does he not understand that the Socialist movement welcomes this sort of thing?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Boothby: Does the Chancellor's announcement today mean that the Government have abandoned any hope of achieving a general settlement with our creditors which would involve some scaling down of the capital obligations involved? Has that been completely abandoned?

Mr. Gaitskell: This announcement relates, of course, to these three countries only; it is not a general settlement beyond that. So far as these countries are concerned, I think it is fair to say that any idea of a general scaling down of balances is in our view impracticable because it could only be done by unilateral repudiation, which we are not prepared to contemplate.

Mr. Shepherd: Is it not a fact that this agreement is a breach of the undertaking entered into with America at the time of the American loan? Further, does not the publication of this agreement at this time preclude all possibility of the scaling down of such debts in the case of other countries in respect of which we have a much stronger case than the ones mentioned here?

Mr. Gaitskell: The answer to both questions is "No, Sir."

Mr. Wyatt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the supplies of stores involved in these sterling balances caused tremendous inflation in India during the war, and widespread suffering, including a famine in Bengal; and that if we had now to say that our sufferings in the war had been greater than those of the Indians we should lose our allies in the East at the moment when we need them most?

Mr. Churchill: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this is by no means an agreed matter between the different parties in the House?

Mr. Gaitskell: It is, I think, well understood on this side of the House that the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to India and the other countries concerned has always been unrealistic and, if I may use the term, totally lacking in humanity.

Mr. Churchill: May I say that I should have hesitated a long time before making such a filthy charge?

Mr. Snow: On a point of order. Is that language which we have had from the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Is that the sort of language we should have from the right hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind the remarks he made about the Prime Minister in the matter of the settlement of India?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. That is a matter entirely for the judgment of hon. Members themselves.

KOREA (OPERATIONS)

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): With Mr. Speaker's permission, I propose today to make a second statement on the course of operations in Korea.
The House will recall that my previous statement covered the course of operations up to 16th November. The position on land at that time was that the American 8th Army, including the 27th British Commonwealth Brigade, was actively patrolling in the area of Pakchon in the north-west of Korea. The other British formation, the 29th Brigade Group, was concentrating in the south of Korea and had already begun local operations against guerrillas.
On 24th November, the American 8th Army began their offensive towards the


Yalu River. This offensive made steady forward progress until the 28th, when it was brought to an abrupt halt by the Chinese Communist offensive. The British Commonwealth 27th Brigade took no part in the advance, having been left in its position north of the Chongchong River.
The Chinese offensive was launched in overwhelming strength. The Headquarters of the United Nations Command announced that some 200,000 Chinese were committed with considerably larger numbers in support. The full brunt of the attack fell upon the American 8th Army who were forced to fall back. By 30th November a wedge, some 50 miles in width, was driven between the 8th Army in the west and the American 10th Corps which had been operating in the east. The United Nations forces were thus split into two unconnected wings. It is convenient from this point to follow separately the desperate rearguard actions fought by each wing.
In the east, the only British unit with the American 10th Corps is the 41st Independent Commando, Royal Marines. At the time of the Chinese attack the United States Marine Division was in the Chosin Reservoir area, elements of another United States Division had reached the Manchurian border, while a South Korean Division was approximately 200 miles north-east of Chosin on the coast. As a result of the strong enemy attack in the Chosin area it has been necessary to withdraw the two last-mentioned formations. At the present time the 10th Corps is opposed by at least seven Chinese divisions, and the build-up continues. Our latest report is that the Commandos are engaged in very bitter fighting alongside the American Marines in a determined attempt to extricate themselves from the danger of encirclement. Supplies have been dropped and considerable numbers of wounded have been evacuated by air.
In the west, the British Commonwealth 27th Brigade—which, as the House knows, in addition to the Middlesex Regiment and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, includes an Australian battalion—has been taking part in the rearguard actions on the right of the American 8th Army. In the early stages of the offensive the Middlesex Regiment was engaged in overcoming strong enemy road blocks

south of Kunuri. The British 29th Brigade Group, which comprises the 8th Hussars, the Northumberland Fusiliers, the Gloucestershire Regiment and the Royal Ulster Rifles, was in reserve at the outset of the offensive. It has now been committed to the battle and its first task was to cover the withdrawal of the 8th Army through Pyongyang. This Army is now holding a line south of the town, but the House will appreciate that I cannot on security grounds say more as to its precise location.
Both our Brigades have played a full part in these most difficult operations, and all reports pay great tribute to the excellence of their morale and fighting qualities. I need not stress to the House the severe strain which is put upon the spirit and discipline of troops by battles of withdrawal in the face of an enemy so vastly superior in strength; and these operations are being conducted in conditions of bitter cold and hardship. The Turkish Brigade has also been heavily engaged. It has fought with great gallantry against heavy odds and has fully upheld the fine fighting tradition of the Turkish soldier.
The latest estimates we have received from General MacArthur's Headquarters indicate that there are now some 270,000 Chinese in contact with the United Nations forces in Korea. Of this total, nearly 200,000 are on the front of the American 8th Army in the West, and over 70,000 are attacking American 10th Corps in the East. Behind these first-line troops, it is estimated that there are nearly half a million Chinese available to support the operations. The figures show the numerical superiority of the forces against which the United Nations troops are contending.
Units of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force have played their full part in this struggle. By sea, the blockade of the west coast has been maintained, and by air, the Sunderland flying boats have continued their patrol activity over Korean waters. Royal Air Force transport aircraft are also now engaged in casualty evacuation from Japan to Singapore and on to the United Kingdom. The Naval and Air Forces of other Commonwealth countries have also been playing their part.
In bitter fighting in the east on 29th November the Royal Marine Commando


lost eight killed, 26 wounded and 35 missing. No details are yet available of the casualties in the 27th and 29th Brigades in the recent fighting, but reports to date indicate that they have not been heavy. Up to the beginning of the Chinese offensive, the total casualties suffered by our Forces had amounted to 52 killed or died of wounds, 174 wounded and five missing.
On 29th November the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked whether I had any figures of United States casualties. My latest information, which is based on figures published by the United States Defence Department, shows that total United States casualties up to the beginning of the Chinese offensive were rather more than 30,000, of whom slightly over 5,000 were killed. I am sure the House would wish to join with me in expressing the deep sympathy we feel for the relatives of these men and the whole American nation.
The Prime Minister is now discussing in Washington the grave situation that confronts us. It is full of peril and difficulty. No one knows what the outcome will be. It would be foolish to underestimate the size or determination of the Chinese intervention. We may have to prepare ourselves for still harder tidings. His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the anxiety which must be felt by the relatives of those serving in Korea, and indeed by the whole country. We share their anxiety. I am sure that the House will want to record its admiration for the gallantry with which our Allies, particularly the United States soldiers, the main bearers of the burden, are fighting this desperate and unequal battle.

Mr. Bellenger: It is quite obvious from my right hon. Friend's report that British troops, apart from American troops, are engaged in a very heroic exploit, and that they probably will continue to be so engaged. Will the commanding officers out there follow the usual practice at the appropriate moment of submitting despatches to the Secretary of State for publication, so that our own people in this country can know the full extent of what they have been through?

Mr. Shinwell: Naturally, we are anxious to furnish the utmost and the most precise information, both to the House and to all concerned in this

country, but when our troops are fighting these rearguard actions and there is considerable confusion and movement, it is not easy to demand of those on the spot that they should send despatches every day to the United Kingdom. I am quite sure that they are doing their best to furnish the necessary information.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen to it that there are adequate reserves of equipment available, or likely to be available in the near future, to cover any losses that may inevitably have taken place in the withdrawals?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not in possession of information which would enable me to give the hon. Gentleman a precise answer, but, certainly, a matter of that kind would not be overlooked.

Mr. Driberg: Has my right hon. Friend seen the very serious despatch in The Times "today, containing the statement made by Mr. Stassen, after his long conference with General MacArthur yesterday, and will he repudiate the views therein attributed to General MacArthur himself, particularly the proposal for a deadline at midnight tomorrow, followed by full-scale atomic war against China?

Mr. Shinwell: I have been asked to furnish the House with a statement on the military position, so far as my information enables me to do so, and I deprecate entering into a discussion of statements made at General MacArthur's headquarters.

Sir Peter Macdonald: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make another statement on the position in Korea before the House rises for the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Shinwell: If there is information which, in the judgment of the Government, should be conveyed to the House, certainly, it will be done.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the Minister tell us anything on the whereabouts of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders?

Mr. Shinwell: I have given some indication of their geographical position, but as to their future disposition, I would rather say nothing.

Mr. John E. Haire: Has my right hon. Friend any information as to the


identity of the commanders of the Chinese troops taking part, or are they still officially to be regarded as irregulars?

Mr. Shinwell: We depend very largely for information on Command Headquarters. We have a liaison officer at those headquarters, but so far we have not been furnished with information about the personalities who are controlling the Chinese intervention.

General Sir George Jeffreys: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us something about one other portion of the Allied forces, and that is the South Koreans? Are they in a position, or in a condition, again to take any considerable part in the Allied operations, or have they to be entirely written off?

Mr. Shinwell: My information is—and I thought I had given it to the House—that some of the South Korean formations are withdrawing. As to their capabilities for continuing the struggle, I should not care to offer any opinion.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware as Minister of Defence that, in this report in "The Times" today, headed "A Stassen Plan for Korea," high Commonwealth officials are expressing surprise that Mr. MacArthur seems to be defying the Administration by making statements—[Interruption.] The shouts from the other side of the House do not matter to me. I am putting my point of view. May I express, here and now in this House through the Minister of Defence—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] May I ask the Minister of Defence if he will make it known to the Prime Minister that, on these benches, at least some of us—I clearly speak for myself—will have nothing to do with this affair if an atomic bomb is dropped on China?

Air Commodore Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman referred to wounded being flown home to the United Kingdom. Is he satisfied that there are sufficient aircraft for the purpose; if not, will he consider arranging for B.O.A.C. to assist in this most important operation?

Mr. Shinwell: I do not know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is suggesting, but, so far as I know, we have sufficient aircraft.

Captain Ryder: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the casualties

which he has listed include naval casualties, and whether there has been any damage to His Majesty's ships in action?

Mr. Shinwell: So far as I know, no serious damage has been sustained by any of His Majesty's naval ships. As regards the casualties, these include naval casualties, but I must make it quite clear only up to the date of the Chinese offensive.

Mr. Rankin: I gather from the statement of my right hon. Friend that there were 400,000 troops available in Manchuria, and that, in addition, there were another 500,000 Chinese troops. Could he say when that knowledge came to the ears of the High Command in Korea?

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot say.

Mr. Grimond: If the Minister feels that he can safely do so, could he tell us something about the equipment of the Chinese army, especially in regard to air warfare—anti-aircraft and air services?

Mr. Shinwell: I understand that they are not using many aircraft, but occasionally aircraft fly over. As to their general equipment, although they are not heavily armoured, they seem to be fairly well equipped.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, the whole House understands how serious is the statement he has made, and understands how very onerous is the problem that faces the Prime Minister and President Truman and, further, deplores any outside observations that may militate against a proper solution of the situation facing our two leaders?

Mr. Shinwell: I fully recognise the importance and validity of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: May I suggest to the Minister of Defence, in view of the statements made in the Lobbies and on the Floor of the House, that there is a section of Members of this House ready to urge the withdrawal of British troops from Korea, and that the rest of the House repudiates that completely? May I also say—and, I think, on behalf of many of my hon. Friends—that much as we regret it and look upon it with horror, if the occasion comes when it is a choice between the destruction of our men and the use of the atomic bomb, we believe we will back the most extreme measure?

Mr. Shinwell: I prefer not to answer the latter part of the supplementary question which relates to the use of the atomic bomb, but I must answer the first part of it. Quite emphatically, there is no thought in our mind nor in that of the American authorities, of withdrawal.

Squadron Leader Burden: May I ask the Minister of Defence whether Royal Air Force fighter or bomber aircraft have been engaged, whether he can give us any details and particulars, and whether there have been any losses?

BILL PRESENTED

LONG LEASES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

"to make temporary provision for the protection of occupiers of residential property in Scotland under leases of not less than thirty-one years," presented by Mr. McNeil; supported by the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Thomas Fraser and Miss Herbison; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (SUNDAY OPENING) BILL

As amended, considered.

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(SUNDAY OPENING OF EXHIBI- TIONS AND GARDENS.)

4.13 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: I beg to move, in page I, line 11, after "amusements," to insert:
on the second, third, fourth and fifth Sundays in any month, and with the amusements on the first Sunday of any month.
I understand that the first of the Amendments standing in my name with regard to the amenities for children has not been called on the ground that it is covered in the Amendments which have been put down later. I shall be very happy to fall in with that arrangement because the later Amendments seem to me to be a very much more appropriate way of dealing with the situation than the omnibus Amendment which I had sought to put down myself. Therefore, I am moving the second Amendment standing in my name, and I will, with the permission of the House, read how the Clause will appear if it is carried.
Nothing in the Sunday Observance Acts, 1625 to 1780, shall be taken to apply in relation to the opening on Sunday"—
I omit a few words—
(b) of the Festival Pleasure Gardens, without the amusements on the second, third, fourth and fifth Sundays in any month, and with the amusements on the first Sunday of any month.
I move this Amendment in accordance, I hope, with the best traditions of democracy, and I take as my text for all that I wish to say, some noble words, spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) on the Committee stage. He said:
If hon. Members are right in saying that the majority of people want this fun fair, nothing could he easier than to be tolerant towards the majority of the people. The real test of democracy is whether we are going to be tolerant to the point of view of the minority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 1055.]
The question which I am now asking him and others who took this view is on the quite simple ground that as we had a quarter of the vote on that occasion, we should have a quarter of the Sundays.
There are some decisions which one can only take once, and they must be taken one way or the other. But there are other decisions of a different kind which have to be taken over and over again and then if three-quarters of the House want to take the decision one way and one-quarter the other, a simple democratic principle is to take it three times one way and one the other.
This Amendment disposes of the argument which a very large number of hon. Members openly stated weighed decisively in their minds, namely, the argument that men should not unnecessarily be asked to work on Sundays if they do not wish to. If the fun fair were open every Sunday, one could imagine that many employers, while not exercising any compulsory rights or powers, would, none the less, convey to the staff that unless they came in with the rest they could be dispensed with, and could find another job. But when it is a question of having the fun fair open on one Sunday out of four it seems inconceivable to me that any fun fair employer would not be able to find at least 25 per cent. of his staff willing, at proper trade union rates, of course, to do the Sunday turn.
Then, again, this Amendment disposes of one of the strongest arguments which a section of hon. Members put forward as their main argument for opposing the fun fair—the question of annoyance. It was argued that it would be hard on the people if Sunday after Sunday their enjoyment were upset by noise. I personally do not believe that a great deal of noise is going to reach any of the houses in any case. But this Amendment disposes of three-quarters of that argument.
There is an even more serious point which I want to urge on behalf of this Amendment. It may be wondered whether there now remains any argument in favour of the opening of the fun fair which was not fully used either on Second Reading or on the Committee stage. I listened to both those debates from the start, and I think there are two arguments which were hardly deployed at all. I should like to deploy them now, not in the hope of converting any Sabbatarian or anybody who voted in the "No" Lobby when this point was put to the vote, but simply to give full weight to the vote, but simply to ask them: Will they at any rate give this fun fair a chance
 
of being seen in operation on one Sunday out of four?
I was greatly surprised in those two debates that so little mention was made of the Tivoli Garden in Copenhagen, because ever since I saw that garden in 1938 I have longed with all my heart that we could see the same sort of thing established in Britain, not for just one year in one place only, but year after year in all the main cities of our land. I am absolutely confident that that form of charming garden with all its amenities financed largely by a fun fair is something healthier than any form of recreation which—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Baronet is getting rather wide of the point. We are only discussing the question of opening on one Sunday in four and he must limit his argument to that question.

Sir R. Acland: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but my argument is that if only the British people could see on one Sunday in four what a healthy form of recreation, rest, fellowship and enjoyment is provided by this garden, then their views would be very rapidly changed about it. Hon. Members may say of course, "We know what a fun fair is like without going to Copenhagen." I wonder if they do. I wonder if the point has occurred to hon. Members that in a fun fair which is entirely operated by private enterprise one half, or thereabouts, of the appliances are purely gambling machines. But that is not the case when it is run by a quasi-public authority as will be seen by any hon. Member who looks at the plan in the tea room. There will be no gambling machines.
We shall be attracting to the fun fair a type of person quite different from the persons who are attracted by gambling machines. I submit that one cannot judge on weekdays what it will be like when it is open on Sundays, and that there is a difference between the people who will come on Sundays and the people who will come on weekdays. To begin with, they will be wearing their Sunday clothes, which in itself creates a different atmosphere. The opportunity to see this thing, if only on one Sunday in four, would give our people the chance in future years of having this form of recreation that is so much healthier than perhaps one half—that is only a rough estimate


—of other forms of recreation that are now legitimately open on Sunday.
There is another point which, to my amazement, was not stressed at all on Second Reading or in the previous Committee debate. Almost all of those who spoke in favour of opening the fun fair spoke as if the only thing to be taken into account was that those who do not believe in religion anyhow would want to go to the fun fair on Sunday and that we should not stop them from so doing. The argument was advanced almost wholly in the name of liberty, and I must say the argument seemed to be a strong one. With the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Lang), who made perhaps the most charming speech of the two debates, nobody was at all seized with the possibility of allowing this fun fair to be open, not in order to give people freedom, but in order to give to the innumerable doubters and unbelievers of our community today a little better chance of opening their minds to Christian truth.
It is on that ground, more than on all others, that I should invite those who have strong religious views to concede the advisability of opening this fun fair on one Sunday out of four. If I may say so, amongst the very large number of complex reasons which have given rise to the fact that so many people have today closed their minds to Christian truth, one of the foremost is that in the last 100 years and more the Church and the church-goers have appeared to be an organisation and a community of people who are tremendously enthusiastic about ceremonial observances and relatively unconcerned about the social well-being of ordinary people.

Mr. Osborne: That is not true. Will not the hon. Baronet agree that almost all the great social movements of the 19th century started in the Christian Church, and will he not agree that his statement is a travesty of the truth?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss the history of the Church of England now.

Sir R. Acland: I readily concede to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) that one of the very few, very strong, historical arguments in favour of—

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not this

debate, with great respect, straying very widely indeed from this strict proposal to open on one Sunday in the month? We are having the whole Sabbatarian argument and the history of the Christian Church.

Mr. Speaker: I agree, but I thought I had given two broad hints already that the hon. Baronet might come to the point. He has not come very near it yet.

Sir R. Acland: With great respect, I am trying to put briefly some points about which I feel very strongly indeed, and I earnestly believe that, in a matter of not more than a minute or two, I can explain why, on grounds of nothing other than Christian evangelism, I believe it would be a great benefit to pass this quite modest Amendment. I should like to take up the exact point which the hon. Member for Louth made. It is certainly true that many social reforms came from such men as Lord Shaftesbury, but the fact borne in on the consciousness of innumerable people whose minds today are closed to Christian truth is that throughout Lord Shaftesbury's struggle he had very little support either from the bishops or the generality of church-goers in our land.
Therefore, I suggest that, in demonstrating once more to our people that almost the highest concern of churchgoers is with merely a matter of ceremonial observance, we are doing something which just closes one more bolt in the closed door of the closed mindedness which is obstructing the Christian truth from coming into the hearts and minds of scores of doubters and unbelievers in our land. I suggest that if those who went into the "No" Lobby only last week, and thereby showed how strong their own feelings are, would now make a concession to the people who have different views, they would do a great deal to show their concern with other things than just ceremonial observance.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not wish to add anything except to say that most of us have had to face a very difficult decision in connection with this Bill. Most of us have had to face the extraordinarily difficult decision of how to balance the opinions of a sincere and fervent minority against a large


but probably not so convinced majority. It seems to me that the proposal which my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) has made gives us a real chance of making a practical test of the issue. All he is suggesting is that on six Sundays in one year we should open these Pleasure Gardens and the amusement park which should be controlled, without any loud amplifiers and so on.
I do not believe there is any religious feeling in the country which could be hurt by that, and it is clear from what has transpired in the last week or two that in the near future the House will have to consider the whole question of the Sabbath Observance Acts and the attitude which should be adopted to existing amusement parks, whether they are to be allowed to continue, whether the amusement park at Weston-super-Mare should be allowed to operate, and so on. In view of that decision which will have to be taken, I think it would be admirable to have a practical demonstration on a small scale of what is involved, so that Members interested should go along to the Festival fun fair and see how it works, and ascertain whether anybody is harmed by it at all.
I want to add a second ground for supporting this Amendment. One thing that troubles me very much is this plain and simple fact. Having tried to look at the matter from the moral point of view, I have to try to look at it from the constituency point of view as well. My constituents, working five and five-and-a-half days a week, will have no chance of visiting the Festival of Britain Exhibition except at weekends. They cannot travel from Oldham to London and back in a day and see anything of this great Exhibition. [Interruption.] An hon. Member says, "Wakes week." That is all very well; I do not know what the hon. Members for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low), or Blackpool, South (Mr. Roland Robinson), would say about a proposal that people should come to London during Wakes week, but I should think it would leave Blackpool very empty. Wakes week is the week when a man, his wife and young children go for their annual holiday. It is a very great occasion in Oldham particularly, and the people want to continue to do that.
A man has to consider whether his children are of a suitable age to bring to the Exhibition; they may be too young. He has to consider how much he can afford, the availability of excursions, and so on. Excursions will have to be planned by British Railways to deal with the situation. Here is a real chance of giving the industrial North an opportunity of seeing this great Exhibition in London, and doing so in a way which cannot offend any religious principles; at least, I do not see how it could do so. In my submission, the House should accept this small Amendment. Here is a genuine attempt to test the matter, to find out the real strength of public opinion and ascertain what its effects would be on public opinion.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Whatever view we may take upon the merits of the Amendment, I think the House will agree that the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) made an extremely interesting constitutional suggestion when he laid before us the thesis that a minority of 25 per cent. should be allowed to visit this fun fair for a quarter of the time. A number of the Measures passed in the last five years, if operated upon that basis, would produce extremely interesting results. One has only to imagine the pits being operated by private enterprise for a quarter of the year and by the State for the remainder.
If I may conveniently mix two metaphors in a manner associated with our hon. Friends from Northern Ireland—I do not think there are any in the House at the moment—I would say that the hon. Baronet's Amendment falls with the greatest accuracy between two stools into the worst of both possible worlds. We have with us the right hon. and learned Attorney-General upon whose knowledge and experience we always lean on these occasions. I studied his countenance with care when the hon. Baronet was speaking, and I thought I detected a certain amount of uncertainty and mystery upon his face. I should like to ask him to assist the House by giving his views upon the consequences of this Amendment should the House decide to adopt it.
Surely, whatever view we may happen to take about this Amendment, the Attorney-General will tell us that it would be extremely difficult to operate the legal code of this country as a whole, and the


penal code in particular, were these words to be inserted in the various Acts of Parliament. I can see the Home Secretary getting into difficulties when a murderer is arrested, when he has to decide whether the fatal blow was struck on the right side of midnight on the first Sunday in the month or whether it occurred just after. That is the sort of trouble that we should meet if this suggestion were generally applied.
May I put this point to the Attorney-General? With references to the famous Mosaic Decalogue to which reference was made during the Second Reading, were we to add to each of those Ten Commandments the words "except upon the first Sunday in the month" we should get some extremely interesting consequences and many social disadvantages. Surely what the hon. Baronet and his hon. Friend are trying to do is to upset a decision of the House which was made only a few days ago in the most emphatic manner. We were discussing whether it was a good thing or not to open the fun fair en Sundays, and by that we meant every Sunday. That question was decided by a majority which I suggest any Government, of any party, past, present or future, might well envy; it was certainly the most emphatic vote passed during the present Parliament.

Mr. Cocks: The devil won on that occasion.

Mr. Nicholson: As a matter of fact he was paired.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Whenever I need advice on anything concerning the devil, I shall refer to the hon. Member who is always so well informed on these matters. We took the view, on the contrary, that the battalions which were defeated were those allied to the force in question. What I am trying to argue is this. The House should not allow this thin wedge to be inserted after a decision made so emphatically a few days ago. In my view, the Amendment is not only undesirable but ludicrous, and if it is not laughed out, I hope it will be thrown out.

Mr. Poole: I agree entirely with the point of view expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Bristol, North-West (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) as to the

ludicrous position which would arise if our legislation were directed on the lines of the new democracy, which I suppose we ought to call the "new Acland" version of democratic practice. This amazing proposition is only excelled by that which astounded me as coming from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale). As a member of the profession which he graces with such extreme distinction, and as one whom I have always been disposed to follow in the arguments which he has presented to this House, I was really astounded to hear him suggesting that, on this issue, we ought to have a trial and see how it goes. I can think of very many social reforms which I should like to introduce in the country, but I think that if I brought some of them forward I should have very great difficulty in mustering enough people to tell in the Lobbies for me. If I suggested that we might have a trial with them and see how they went, I imagine that I should meet fantastic opposition.

Mr. Leslie Hale: It is exactly the same principle as that, in the case of Summer Time, which was originally introduced experimentally and has continued ever since.

Mr. Poole: Hon. Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland), are trying in some way to confuse the voting in the Lobbies of the House, with the opinions of the electorate in the country.

Sir R. Acland: Sir R. Acland indicated dissent.

Mr. Poole: The hon. Member's attempts to lead the people of this country to an acceptance of the Christian faith have been sadly misguided and singularly ineffective, it seems to me. There are other things in the Gardens which people will want to see. Many people who come from Oldham and Gravesend would like to see the House in session when they come to London. Are the hon. Gentlemen prepared to advocate that the House should be in session on one Sunday in order that the wishes of these people should be met? Of course, they are not. Without any disrespect, I would say that they are probably like myself—people who catch the earliest possible train out of London as soon as the business of the House will safely permit their departure on a Friday.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Gentleman is raising art interesting point. If the House could so re-arrange the accommodation, I should be very happy to consider that suggestion. At the moment the accommodation would not even provide for the visitors who would come from Oldham alone.

Mr. Poole: That is an even more amazing proposition—that because one cannot do justice to all the people, one should not do justice to any. How does that fit in with the suggestion that we should have a try and see how it goes? It shows the confusion of thought and mind of those who are responsible for it. I thought we had decided this principle last week and, without seeking to cast any reflection on the Chair, I was amazed to see that the same issue was before the House today—only now it is in relation to one Sunday in four.
No one can accuse me of introducing deep religious convictions, in the sense that most people understand them, and allowing them to weigh with me on this question. I am not one of those, to whom the hon. Member for Gravesend referred, who go to church very frequently but that is the end of their religion; I do not go to church very frequently. There has never been any doubt in my mind about how I should vote on this issue. That is not because of any electoral reason, because if I had voted as I believe the majority of the people in my constituency would wish, I should have voted for the opening of the fun fair. I am one who was brought up in a home where it was felt that nothing should be done on a Sunday which need not be done. My mother peeled the potatoes for the Sunday dinner on the Saturday. All the shoes were cleaned before Sunday and none on Sunday, and so on. That may be an extreme example, but I believe that the further we, as a nation, depart from that conception in its modern application, the poorer we shall become.
I have worked for seven years of my life for 14 days a fortnight. In those days it was a great advantage to work on Sunday because the economic circumstances of my home made the additional Sunday pay a valuable contribution to bringing up my children. On looking back, I realise that, mentally, morally and certainly physically and spiritually, I am immensely the poorer because, during those seven years. I was

not able to set one day aside and say. "This is a day which is separate and apart from all the rest—a day on which I will refresh my soul and my spirit." Because of that, I have no hesitation in opposing the Amendment. I think it is inconsistent and nonsensical and that it would destroy what we did in the House last week. I hope that those who have supported the Amendment so far will now withdraw it, and that we shall not be compelled to defeat it in a Division.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Gammons: I did not take the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) seriously. I think that in one respect and in one part of his speech he was doing a bit of fun-fairing on his own, especially when he enunciated this fantastic constitutional proposition. May I put this to him? If I am lucky enough next year to draw in the ballot the chance of introducing a public Bill, I shall introduce one to denationalise the railways and I shall expect the hon. Baronet's support at least in de-nationalising half the railways, because that would represent the voting strength of the House. I imagine that his proposition was put forward as an amusement and as a contribution to the amusements park itself.
What I think the hon. Baronet and his supporters do not realise is that in the minds of most people, and I think of the majority of the House, this issue has been settled once and for all, and we do not want any variants of it. The hon. Baronet suggested that if he had followed the wishes of the majority of his electors, he would certainly have voted to have the amusements park open. I do not believe that to be true, and it may interest the House to know what was the result of a Gallup poll which I conducted in my constituency. I wrote to the secretaries of over 100 organisations in my constituency—churches, chapels, rotary clubs, the British Legion, women's guilds and, in fact, every organisation I could find—and I asked them for their opinion on what ought to be done about the amusements park on Sundays. The answers were most illuminating. Over 80 per cent. were in favour of opening the exhibition but closing the amusements park. Eleven per cent. wanted both open and 9 per cent, were in favour of clos-


ing both. Thus, so far as my constituents are concerned, nine out of every 10 were in favour of closing the amusements park on Sunday.

Sir R. Acland: The hon. Gentleman will realise that all these Gallup polls have only a limited value. The hon. Gentleman said that he wrote to the secretaries of 100 organisations, but I submit to him that they are rather extraordinary people. I called on 100 ordinary people, first those living in a municipal housing estate and secondly those in the richest street I could find in my constituency; and the result was exactly the opposite of that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—80 per cent. were in favour of opening on Sunday.

Mr. Gammans: That may be so. All I can say is that I took the trouble to write to organisations which are regarded as representative of public opinion. Most of them gave their views after having consulted as many members as possible. Be that as it may, my opinion is, from my constituents, that the people of this country want the amusements park to be closed on Sundays.
I am willing to concede that those who take the opposite point of view have most of the logic on their side. I admit that. They advanced irrefutable arguments that it is illogical or even rank hypocrisy to do what the House decided to do the other night, but I believe this is one of the cases where instinct triumphs over logic. The British people are not logical and it is no good pretending that they are. They have an instinct that, for reasons they probably could not explain, they do not want the amusements park open on any Sunday. I therefore sincerely hope that if this Amendment is taken to a Division the House will resist it, because I am convinced that it is contrary to what the country wants.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I would suggest to the House, in regard to this particular Amendment, which is a perfectly legitimate one to consider, that we should not debate it for too long, because we are a little in danger of repeating the arguments that were expressed on the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), in the Committee stage. Nevertheless, there is

point in what my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) has said, that the Committee, having decided there should be no Sunday opening, the House may yet say, "Well, 25 per cent. opening." It could so say. However, the principle has been argued out, and it leaves the issue whether, roughly speaking, a 25 per cent. compromise may be agreed to or not.
I am not going to advise the House on what it should do one way or the other. I feel rather more sympathetic about these Amendments. Personally, I shall vote for a good number of them. Others of my Ministerial colleagues will vote against them. The House will have a free vote, as far as I can see, on the lot of them. I will inform the House should it be otherwise.
I would add this further word. The other day I supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), and I did so on the ground that in the atmosphere of the matter, generally speaking—and, I may say, to stop any ill feeling thereafter—I thought it better for his Amendment to be carried and to deprive me or any other Minister of ministerial discretion. I still think that is right.
What the House is doing today is taking a series of test issues—the outstanding cases. The House will freely decide on each one whether it will carry the Amendment or reject it. I think that is the better way to do it—the clear, democratic, specific, Parliamentary way of deciding an issue. I hope hon. Members will listen to what I think could be fairly short discussions on each Amendment; then let the House freely vote whether it will permit a thing or not, as we go along. It may well be that the House will permit one thing and will not permit another, but let the House try to consider each one on the merits of the case and come to a decision as it thinks wise.
Personally, I feel rather sympathetic about some of these Amendments, but some of my colleagues will not. However, this is the right way to proceed. We could have a series of short discussions on the Amendments and then have a free vote. Let us hope that those who are not in the Chamber, when they come in without the assistance of Whips, will be able to find the way to the Lobby of


their choice—which I think they had some difficulty in doing the other day. Possibly, that was my fault. I had to make careful inquiries myself, as a matter of fact, as to which way to go. Let us review these other Amendments briefly, and then let the House come to such conclusion as it thinks right and proper in the circumstances of each case.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure the Lord President has given the House good counsel. We on this side, of course, will have an entirely free vote on each of these Amendments, towards which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, some will feel sympathetic and to which others will be opposed. I can give no guidance in respect of the party view on the Amendment which is actually under discussion, but I must say that I thought one of my hon. Friends behind me expressed very succinctly a series of views to which the House would do well to give attention. All I say is that we, like the Lord President, are not taking any party view of any of the Amendments. They will be considered entirely on their merits. For myself, I trust it will not be necessary to take this Amendment to a Division. Were there one, I myself would vote against it.
Also, I trust that we shall not take too long on these Amendments. I feel that they are slightly incongruous in relation to the enormous and grave issues which were raised in the statement by the Minister of Defence earlier in the day. I trust that we shall have a due sense of responsibility when we are discussing these things. and remember that this is only a tiny part of a tiny area, and that the issues themselves are not of first-rate importance, and that issues of very, very much greater importance have been raised today, and must be at the back of the mind of every one of us.

Sir R. Acland: I, personally, should naturally like to go on arguing this Amendment, which I sincerely put forward, but I feel that if the discussion on it is prolonged, that will militate against other Amendments on which, perhaps, the House will be more likely to take the same view as I do, and in all the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, at the end, to insert:
and includes any vessel moored by the Gardens as a representation of Captain Bligh's Bounty.
The name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) was inserted at the top of the list of the names of those supporting the Amendment under the impression, I suppose, that we were dealing with Queen Anne's Bounty; since when it has been found that it is concerned with Captain Bligh's Bounty. However, I ask the House to say that this is a very small matter. This is not an infiltration on any past decision. Let me explain the position.
There was intended to be moored in the Gardens a model of Captain Bligh's Bounty, and it was so arranged as to be an informative exhibition, for admission to which there would be a small charge, and from which people, as they went round, could learn something of the history of that ship's somewhat famous—or infamous—voyage. Surely, a four-masted barque must be something worthy of seeing for a naval nation. I cannot assure the House that it is a full-scale model, but as it is big enough to be on exhibition it is certainly a substantial model. There is no question of noise of any kind in connection with this exhibition. I ask the House to say that this is a small matter, to which it can agree without a Division.

Mr. Paget: I beg to second the Amendment. I think we are all agreed on the principle that the Exhibition should be opened on Sunday, but not the fun fair.

Mr. Osborne: We do not all agree.

Mr. Paget: Well, I think the majority do, and I feel that the ship's model comes inside the scope of the Exhibition.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I regret very much having to intrude myself again upon the House in regard to the legal aspects of this Amendment, and, if it would be convenient, of all the Amendments following this one. Without expressing any view about the merits of one or another of them one way or another, I should like to attempt a further and, I hope, a better clarification of the law so as to show to the House that it will be useful to have a vote, which-


ever way it goes, on these various Amendments. The Government are very anxious to be completely loyal to whatever may be the general sense of the House in regard to these questions, and I think it would be convenient if the House had the technical difficulties in mind as it came to consider each of the Amendments.
The difficulties arise from two things. The first is the general state of the law. The second is the fact that on Second Reading the Lord President of the Council gave an undertaking, from which he has no intention of departing, in the following words:
I will … give an Undertaking on behalf of the Government that should the House … decide against the operation of the amusements on Sundays, I will, by administrative methods, ensure that that undertaking is carried out in the spirit as well as in the letter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 544.]
That administrative undertaking, of course, was quite different from imposing upon the Lord President or the Secretary of State, as I think the first Amendment on the Paper attempted to do, a statutory duty entitling him in some cases to prohibit what would be otherwise legal and in other cases to admit what would be otherwise illegal.
5.0 p.m.
The question, therefore, is how the administrative undertaking should be applied on the assumption that the Bill were to become law in its present form without any of these Amendments. When I spoke about this previously I said that the law was in a mess. One view of the law, if the Bill is passed as it stands—a view which perhaps I did not stress sufficiently in dealing with the matter previously—is that the technical effect of subsection (1, b), which permits the Festival Pleasure Gardens to be opened despite the Sunday Observance Acts—we do not intend to administer it in that way, but it is the technical effect that I am talking about—is that since the Bill permits the opening of the Festival Gardens without the amusements, anything may be provided which is not expressly prohibited in the body of the Bill itself.
In Committee I said that except for the exhibitions and the Festival Gardens the Festival would be thrown back now on the ordinary law of Sunday Observance,

and that is perfectly correct. At that time, however, I confess I had not realised the number of things that it had been intended to do, or that it was contemplated doing in the Festival Gardens but outside the fun fair section of it, although I did give a list of amusements which would be illegal under the Bill as it stood.
I want, therefore, to be sure that I correctly explain the whole matter to the House in the light of what it was contemplated might be done in the Festival Gardens but outside the fun-fair section. I think there is no doubt at all that a cinema would be legal under the Bill as it stands. It is not intended to have one, as a matter of fact, but I mention that just in passing. There, of course, the permissive power under the Bill simply achieves without licence from the London County Council what is already the law in London, and really there is not much in that. There is no doubt, I think, that concerts would be legal. I do not know whether it is intended to have concerts; it may be. There again the Bill achieves, in its own way, what is already generally legal without a licence under the Act of 1932. I do not think there is any difficulty in regard to those cases. They are quite clear.
The difficulty arises in regard to the various other things of a less obvious character from the legal point of view. Are they legalised under the general permission of subsection (1, b) or are they prohibited by the definition of "amusements" or by the specific exclusions in subsection (4)? Those are the things which I think have been completely listed, as far as I know of what was contemplated to be done, in the various Amendments which have been put down. The House will remember that in subsection (4) there are some express prohibitions. There shall not be authorised
a stage play. variety entertainment, circus turn or puppet or marionette show, … a contest or display of boxing or wrestling, … public dancing.
All those things will be illegal anyway. That is quite clear.
The difficulty in regard to the items which are set out in the different Amendments is really this: Are they amusements within the definition of "amusements" in subsection (3, b)? The House will remember that that definition includes


swings, roundabouts or other fairground amusements. Before Festival Gardens Limited can decide whether they are legally entitled to do these things, and before the Lord President can decide whether, administratively, he ought to allow them to be done, even if they are legal, it is necessary to get some guidance from the House. Let me just go through them very quickly and refer to the legal matters.
The Amendment with which we are dealing at the moment involves the question whether a replica of the "Bounty" would be an amusement. It involves that question, and another to which I will refer later. Well, honestly, I do not know. I should have thought it might not be an amusement. I do not know, but I should have thought probably not. If there is doubt about it, it might be better to have a vote to decide one way or the other. There is an additional doubt about the "Bounty." The question is: Is it in the Festival Gardens? Well, it is moored alongside, and we have to be clear whether it is included. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is very anxious to maintain, as an enthusiastic yachtsman, that this is a boat on the Thames, and that it is perfectly legal to go in a boat on the Thames on Sunday. If having a boat on the Thames on a Sunday is an amusement, for which a charge is made, I must warn my right hon. Friend about the way he conducts himself on his boat on a Sunday, because if it is an amusement he would be breaking the law and I should have to look into the situation very seriously. He may have to submit himself to special rules on Sunday in regard to the matter. We obviously want to make quite clear whether this is intended to be included so as to avoid any technical argument by some gold-digging common informer later on.

Mr. Porter: Surely my right hon. and learned Friend wll remember that in Liverpool we had on Sefton Park Lake a boat containing a representation of Barrie's play.

The Attorney-General: I have expressed the view that I do not think this is a fairground amusement, although one might possibly see something of the kind on a fairground. I have not seen one, but I should not like to say for certain

that it could not be an amusement. I therefore suggest that we decide one way or the other and relieve the Lord President of any difficulty he might feel in carrying out his undertaking to the House.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Can the Attorney-General tell the House whether, in fact, a licence has been obtained from the Port of London Authority to moor this vessel off Battersea Park?

The Attorney-General: I cannot, but there is a general provision in either the original or the Second Act exempting the Festival from the necessity of obtaining licences. It may be that we come within that exemption, but I should not like to answer off-hand. I have not had the point put to me before, and I could not answer it with certainty at the moment.

Sir R. Glyn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make inquiries? No vessel may be moored permanently in a navigational water without the permission of the authority responsible. That affects the Thames Conservancy and the Port of London Authority.

The Attorney-General: I am quite sure that that point will be borne very seriously in mind, and I am obliged to the hon. Baronet for mentioning it. It has been mentioned in the hearing of officials representing the Festival, and I understand that it is actually under discussion at the moment.
The next proposed Amendment is in page 2, line 26, at the end to insert:
but shall not be taken to include any puppet or marionette show.
That, of course, is expressly excluded under the Bill as it stands, and the House will have to vote whether it wants to include it or not. I make no comment about that, because that is a perfectly clear legal matter one way or the other which does not give rise to any embarrassing consequences so far as the law is concerned.
The next proposed Amendment, in page 2, line 26, at the end to insert:
but shall not be taken to include any such vessel as aforesaid 
again refers to the "Bounty." It is intended to make quite clear that the definition of "amusements" in subsection (3) does not include the "Bounty," in case anyone might think it did.
Then it is proposed, in page 2, line 26, at the end to insert:
but shall not be taken to include any children's pony-carriage drives.
This is a typical Amendment designed to limit and clarify the definition of what is meant by a "fairground amusement." Again, I personally do not know whether children's pony-carriage drives are a fairground amusement. They will certainly be found at some fairgrounds, but they are also to be found elsewhere—perhaps on the beach at Frinton. It might be as well to have a vote one way or the other on whether we should exclude it from the definition of a "fairground amusement." It may well be that some hon. Members will think there is not much harm in children's pony-carriage drives, always provided that there is proper segregation of the sexes, and so forth.
Next it is proposed, in page 2, line 26, at the end to insert:
but shall not be taken to include any special illuminations.
My opinion about that is that that is not affected by the definition of "amusements."

Mr. Nicholson: Do I understand that if this Amendment on illuminations was rejected by the House, and it afterwards turned out that it was an ordinary fairground amusement, it would still remain legal unless an expressed prohibition was included in the Bill?

The Attorney-General: If this was rejected by the House—and, expressing my own personal view, I hope very much that it will not be rejected for the reason I will indicate—I think that the Lord President in implementing his undertaking will have to say that this must be forbidden, although it is legal. May I say this about it: I have very little doubt that it is legal. Nonetheless, I should like to see the Amendment passed in order to give guidance to the Lord President; but I think that anything like that which is a permanent and standing part of this Exhibition, and the illuminations will be, of course, is legal. If they were all turned out, I suppose there would be more or less complete darkness in the Festival Gardens on Sunday evenings, which might be an extremely undesirable thing. [Interruption.] I do not expect to be there myself on a Sunday evening. I think that the

House may wish to vote on that, and I would suggest that as it is almost certainly already quite legal under the Bill as it stands, we should vote in favour of the Amendment, so as to put this thing beyond any possible doubt or any embarrassment for the Lord President in the administration of his undertaking.
The children's zoo is a different matter. That might be a fairground amusement. Zoological Gardens like Regent's Park are, of course, legal on a Sunday under the 1932 Act. I think myself that the general permission to open the Festival Gardens on a Sunday would probably be taken to cover this. On the other hand, there is a kind of children's zoo—a pet's corner—in fairgrounds sometimes. such as at permanent fairs at Blackpool, and we should like to get the clear view of the House whether it is desirable or not.
The next one is:
any underground grotto or series of grottos or elevated tree walk if designed for visual or scenic effect.
That is a doubtful one. It is not a moving thing at all. I should have thought that it might be legal and might not be embraced by the definition of fairground amusements, but it is doubtful, and we may have litigation about it. so perhaps the House would decide one way or the other what it thinks about the merits of it.
5.15 p.m.
Next we come to "boating lake." I take a clear view that an ordinary lake, like the lake in Battersea Park as at present, would be perfectly legal and not regarded as a fairground amusement, and therefore perfectly legal under the Bill as it stands. It is, however, right to tell the House that this is not quite that kind of lake. It is a lake for little boats with paddles and some with electric motors. It is a little children's boating lake. We see these in permanent fairgrounds. I want to get that out of the way and make it quite clear whether we do or do not want that included.
As to the Punch and Judy show, as the Bill stands that is expressly excluded by the exclusion of marionette and puppet shows. But hon. Members may take the view that there are Punch and Judy shows and Punch and Judy shows, and that a Punch and Judy show is one of the things they do not want to exclude. That is a matter which the House will decide on the


merits. It is quite essential to deal with that, or legally it will be excluded.
The next one:
Any miniature railway adapted wholly or mainly for children to ride in
concerns one of those switchback things that go up and down and make people either merry or sick, but as it is a little railway that meanders round the gardens, that may be a fairground amusement.

Sir Peter Bennett: It is fairground amusement. My own company runs a fairground which has a miniature children's railway in it.

The Attorney-General: That gives rise to a difficulty. Is a thing a fairground amusement because one finds it sometimes in a fairground, although one may find it elsewhere? That is why we want to get a clear definition on the point. I think that it is a thing that we may find in fairgrounds, and I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about it. The House will have the opportunity of giving a clear vote on that, and that will also help us in the administration of the gardens.
The Amendment:
leave out 'or puppet or marionette show'
and the next one:
after 'show', insert 'but not including a Punch and Judy show.'
are linked together. They are to permit the holding of a Punch and Judy show other than a marionette show. The last Amendment:
after 'wrestling', insert 'or'
is purely drafting.
I think that I have explained the position clearly to the House and in the light of that explanation the House will be able to forget about the law and vote on the merits of each one of these things. Whichever way it votes, it will very much help us in the legal position, in the actual administration, and in carrying out the wishes of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: May I ask Mr. Deputy-Speaker for guidance? It has been suggested that we should have a general discussion and then, if necessary, decide on one or other of the proposals separately. I think that perhaps that would be for the convenience of the House, rather than to debate each one separately, which, I think, might get us

into a certain amount of difficulty and involve us in a certain amount of argument.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I understood from Mr. Speaker that he thought it would be easier if we took each topic and kept it on its own; otherwise we may get a rambling debate.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry if I have transgressed, but the observations I have made do apply to all and do not affect the merits of any.

Mr. Summers: In view of the fact that one of the Amendments which I had on the Order Paper fell to the ground as a result of the vote when this matter was discussed previously on the Committee stage, I should like to say how gratified I am that a positive approach to the question of what is reasonable to be done in the Festival Gardens has been substituted for a negative approach which was originally the feature of the Bill. I voted against the Second Reading of the Bill. I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) that on that occasion—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are on the Report stage and only dealing with whether or not we are to have Captain Bligh's "Bounty."

Mr. Iain MacLeod: Further to that point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to reconsider the Ruling on having a general debate. I am certain that those of us who desire to put points can do so quite briefly now, and all the other matters can be passed very quickly indeed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I can only repeat that I understand that Mr. Speaker did not wish to do that.

Mr. Summers: I think that is not going to prolong the discussion of the whole thing. Possibly some of the observations on one of these Amendments might be taken as read for some of the others. In regard to this particular one concerning the "Bounty"—

Mr. Leslie Hale: I am sorry to interrupt, but I only want to be helpful. I think that we all agree that the pigeonhole system with regard to the small


factual Amendments is better and that if hon. Members would undertake to put before the House the very few facts which are desirable to describe each matter, general observations might take place on the first Amendment.

Mr. Summers: I think that it may save time if we could say in one go what otherwise might take twice as long in a series of debates. I would regard as disappointing if the outcome of all this business was that the Festival Garden would be closed on Sundays. The question of whether payment should be charged and so on is a relevant aspect of it. As I see it, a number of these proposals—and this one is an illustration of my point—will have the effect of making it easier for those in control of the Festival Gardens to keep them open. Therefore. I am biased in favour of the majority of the Amendments. They will tend to produce the result I had in mind all along. I hope that it may not be necessary to take a vote on each of the Amendments. Quite a number of the Amendments might be dealt with without causing confusion to Members who will not know into which Lobby they should go.

The Attorney-General: I suggested that we should adopt or reject each Amendment one way or the other.

Mr. Summers: I support this Amendment, and I hope that we shall not have to go through the process of a Division on each of the following Amendments.

Mr. James Hudson: It is a healthy sign that the hon. and learned Member—

Mr. Summers: I am not "learned."

An Hon. Member: But he is learning.

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) was wise in insisting that we should not take a Division on each of these Amendments. There are many amusements which could be included for the entertainment of the general public on Sundays, in spite of the strong views the House has expressed In regard to the opening of the fun fair on Sundays. There is no difficulty at all about this Amendment. If we are to proceed by the positive approach, we must examine each Amendment in turn. Captain Bligh's "Bounty," as I imagine it to be, will look

somewhat similar to vessels that are already in existence in places of amusement.
I have in mind the full-scale model of the "Golden Hind" which is to be seen at Southend. I do not know whether it was on a Sunday that I saw it, although I am told that it can be seen on Sundays. When I was there, I saw a stream of solemn personages, entirely Sabbatarian, passing to and fro, and I cannot imagine that there would be any offence to the memory of those who sailed that vessel, or to the Sabbatarian point of view, for people to look at that vessel on a Sunday. It was a good opportunity for those who wanted to see it from the historical point of view. I cannot imagine that Captain Bligh's "Bounty," if it is at all an honest representation, will provide other than good education on the way in which the Navy used to treat those who sailed in these vessels. It is a very good thing to see such a vessel from the educational point of view, whether it is during the week or on a Sunday. There cannot be any real objection to this admirable exhibition.
I shall try to satisfy my right hon. and learned Friend, who stated the law on these matters. I can tell him that there is no necessity to regard this sort of thing as an amusement, but that it is as much an educational exhibition as those strange things people will go to see in the South Kensington Museum, where wonderful things take place if a penny is put in a slot. I am told that it is a very valuable exhibition. I hope, for positive reasons, that the House will consider it right, despite the vote of last week, to include this vessel for exhibition purposes.

Sir R. Glyn: I hope that the House will agree to this Amendment. I suppose that this vessel is the vessel which was constructed for use in a film, a three-quarter size vessel. If this vessel is moored by the Gardens, a large number of people will want to see it. I ask the Attorney-General to point out to the Lord President of the Council the desirability of linking up this model of the "Bounty" with the Royal Naval Museum at Greenwich, which is open on Sundays. There is not much difference between seeing a model of a ship moored at Battersea and the model ships at Greenwich.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is going beyond the Amendment.

Sir R. Glyn: I was merely expressing the hope that the Amendment will be accepted, and that by seeing this vessel it will encourage people to go to the Greenwich Museum.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Nicholson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, at the end, to insert:
but shall not be taken to Include any puppet or marionette show.
I was much moved by the reference made to the anomalous nature of our debate with more serious events elsewhere, and for that reason I shall keep my speech very short. I am convinced that, for anyone who wants to get an Amendment accepted, he must not bore the House too much. This Amendment is perfectly simple, although it raises an issue which is rather different from the other Amendments, as the Attorney-General has said. I want puppet or marionette shows included because I think that they are harmless and innocent. I understand that they are mentioned in the Sunday Observance Act because in those days they were not thought so innocent; but those who run marionette shows today are most respectable people, and they run them for most respectable objects.
This Amendment also includes Punch and Judy shows. I think that everyone will wish Punch and Judy shows to be included, both for their entertainment value and for the moral lesson that the awful fate of Mr. Punch teaches. I am ready to listen to any argument showing that puppet shows are immoral: but if we approach this matter in a real and constructive spirit, I suggest that it is reasonable to allow these completely innocent and instructive entertainments to take place on Sundays.

Mr. Lionel Heald: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Summers: I am sorry to take a different view from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). I regard this Amendment as being distinguishable from the other Amendments. Although I am speaking from memory, I think that the Lord President of the Council said that subsection (4) included a number of features which were automatically regarded as objectionable. That was the view of such an enthusiastic

amusements person as the Lord President of the Council. It would seem to be quite logical to distinguish this Amendment from some of the other things which were proposed for the Gardens, and for that reason I hope that the House will not support the proposal to make this lawful on Sunday, as was done on the previous Amendment.
5.30 p.m.
There is another point I want to make. I referred to the assistance to those in charge of the Gardens, if some of these attractions were made lawful in the Bill. I do not think that this particular one comes under that heading. Indeed, it was never contemplated originally, or it would not have been in the Bill in the first instance. What I should like to be told on this Amendment or subsequently is whether, if the bulk of these Amendments get through, the doubt as to the opening of the Gardens would thereby be removed. T think I am right in stating that one of the reasons for encouraging people to support a number of the Amendments is the prospect that it will make it easier for the Gardens to be open.

The Attorney-General: I do not think I can give any undertaking about that. The hon. Gentleman said that if this Amendment passed it would make it easier for the Gardens to be open, and I do not think I can go beyond that. The whole matter will no doubt, be investigated by Festival Gardens, Limited, and we all hope it will be possible to open the Gardens, though I cannot commit the company.

Mr. Summers: I was wondering if between the last stage of this Bill and today discussions had taken place and that some guidance might be given to us.

Mr. Nicholson: Would my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) give us some positive argument showing that marionettes and puppets are unreasonable on Sundays?

Mr. Summers: I was hoping that we might be spared a lengthy analysis of what is reasonable or unreasonable on Sundays. This particular topic has been gone over at very great length, and I am the last one to want to inflict my views in these matters. The Bill was given a Second Reading and this type of attraction was prohibited. I should have


thought that this matter had been decided by the vote on Second Reading, although I myself was in the minority.

Mr. Nicholson: Not at all.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I have an open mind on this Amendment, but I should be very interested to hear what distinction the hon. Member makes between this Amendment and the other Amendments.

Mr. Summers: If the House will bear with me for two or three moments I will tell them of a puppet show which I saw, and which was very good entertainment, a few nights ago. In that we come very close to the theatre.

Mr. Nicholson: But they are not living.

Mr. Summers: My hon. Friend says they are not living. That may be so and he may, therefore, have to classify them in terms of the cinema. I should have thought that they came sufficiently near to variety and to the theatrical category of entertainment as to put them over the border line of what it is really intended to do in the Festival Gardens.

Mr. William Elwyn Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the main feature of the children's hour programme on the television on Sundays for years has been a puppet or marionette show? So far as I am aware, there has been no protest to the B.B.C. by any clerical or other authority.

Mr. Summers: The hon. Gentleman is relying on logic as a number of other hon. Gentleman have been relying on logic. [Laughter.] Logic is always called in aid to fortify arguments when there is no other means of doing so. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) said he would prefer to trust to instinct than logic in a great many cases, and that is not bad advice. My hon. Friend may have logic on his side here, but I would prefer to trust to instinct and say that this is over the border line, and that it should not be permitted.

Mr. Keenan: I want to put one or two questions. It seems to me that here we are trying to salvage something out of the wreck following the decision already taken.

What I want to know is whether, if this Amendment is passed, we shall permit on Sundays certain entertainments which normally would be part of the fun fair. How far will the authorities be allowed to put into operation parts of the fun fair, that fun fair having already been banned on Sunday by a vote of the House?

The Attorney-General: I do not know if my hon. Friend was here when I made my speech on the previous Amendment, but I endeavoured to say that some of these Amendments are doubtful. No doubt some of them are outside the fun fair altogether, and I dealt with the definition of "amusements." Some of these proposals are pretty clearly outside, and some are doubtful one way or another. There might be a puppet show either inside or outside the fun fair, and whether it is legal or not is not altogether clear.

Mr. Keenan: There is a certain amount of agreement here, because those who so vigorously opposed the Sunday opening of the fun fair seem strangely absent today. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have not heard very much against these proposals, but perhaps I shall now that I have raised the matter. It seems to me that some portion of the fun fair will be open if the most of these Amendments are carried today.

The Attorney-General: No, these things are outside the area of the fun fair. They were to have been provided in other parts of the Festival Gardens, but outside the fun fair section or whatever it is called. We have made no attempt at all to legalise anything in the original plan of the fun fair.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) not to press his objection. I think it would be a great advantage if we could pass this Amendment, and, indeed, all the Amendments put forward by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale). I should like to make it clear that I voted against the Second Reading and against the fun fair. I do not think my hon. Friend's objection to this Amendment should be pressed because he cannot have it both ways. If he welcomed, as he did welcome and as I welcome, the positive approach enshrined


in these Amendments, then he has to answer the question, where does this Amendment differ from all other? I can find no difference at all in them. Indeed, if we had gone through the various aspects of the fun fair, as we are doing in these Amendments, the fun fair might well have got through this House, because it is extremely difficult to argue against, say, swings as one particular item.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury spoke about logic being on the side of the supporters of Sunday opening he was met with some derisive laughter. I agree with him. It is precisely that problem that is touched on in discussions of this problem because there is no logic in this matter. Logic never has been or will be a condemnation or a repudiation of a belief, and it is only in the big matters that at the end of the argument, however logical it may be, that we can say, "I believe." I believe that we have got ourselves into the ridiculous position of dancing on a pin about matters with which we are confronted this afternoon.
Lastly I should like to ask the Attorney-General one thing. I gathered that these Amendments have been framed to try to get—and I think they are an admirable piece of work—the sort of entertainment for the Festival Pleasure gardens which is in contemplation. Is the Attorney-General satisfied that these Amendments will be adequate? There is the possibility of this Bill being looked at in another place and additions made. But if we accept the positive approach, as I do, it might be argued in another place that, apart from this positive approach, there should still be a small measure of discretion to a Minister of the Crown, which would cover minor matters not covered by the detailed proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Oldham, West.

The Attorney-General: In my view of the law, the permission under Clause 1 (1, b) makes anything legal which was not expressly prohibited in this Bill, but it was not intended to administer the Bill in that way. That was why action on these lines will be needed. The Amendments that have been put down have been by Private Members on both sides of the House. When I looked at them this morning, as I did, and compared them with the list, which I also looked at this morning, of what Festival

Gardens Limited had contemplated doing, it seemed to me that those Amendments covered all the things about which there could possibly be any controversy. That is really all I can say. In the light of the decision of the Committee on this matter, Festival Gardens Limited and the Lord President of the Council, carrying out the undertaking which he gave on the Second Reading, will do their best to administer the thing in accordance with the sense of the House.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: When the Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson), another of my hon. Friends the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) felt that this was very much a border-line case, and I was inclined to agree with him. One of the later interventions of the Attorney-General has rather forced me to change my mind. I want to be quite certain now that I have got it right. My first reaction to the Amendment was one that has not been mentioned so far, that it was somewhat unfair to the showmen in the fun fair itself to be precluded from Sunday activity if we were now to allow puppet and marionette shows to function, which are very much the same sort of thing. I now understand that in any case they are, geographically, outside the fun fair, in the Exhibition grounds. If that is so, it makes a difference to the issue.
I understood from my hon. Friend when he was speaking that he was seeking permission for any puppet or marionette shows to stay outside in the Gardens, outside the fun fair, whereas we have already refused permission for the fun fair itself to function.
We find in subsection (4) of this Clause that puppet and marionette shows are specifically mentioned as activities to which the Bill does not apply. That led me to oppose the Amendment, but if the Attorney-General assures us—I think he does—that all that this means is that something in the Festival Gardens is to be permitted to function on Sundays, my objections are largely removed.

The Attorney-General: That is the position. I think I am right in saying so. but perhaps I shall get a nod one way or the other from those who instruct me, whether I am right or wrong. All these Amendments relate to things which are geographically outside what is called "the


fun fair area." Hon. Members who put down Amendments on one side or the other have, I gather, not attempted to go outside the decision of the Committee the other day and to legalise anything inside the fun fair. The fun fair is out, on Sundays, and that is an end to it. These shows are outside the fun fair. They will be functioning quite independently on ordinary weekdays. The question is whether they should continue on Sundays. That is all I can say without expressing a view on the merits.

5.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down will he tell us, because I am sure the House will be interested to know, why the Government, in the drafting of the Bill, sought to exclude these shows in Clause 1 (4)?

The Attorney-General: I am afraid of getting myself involved in the merits of this matter. If hon. Members like to look up my Second Reading speech they will get some indication of my views. I want to be loyal on this matter. This is a free vote, and members of the Government must not express their views. If I express my view one way other right hon. Gentlemen may express theirs in other ways.

Mr. Osborne: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman asking the House to say that it will be perfectly reasonable and logical to have marionette shows outside the fun fair but legally wrong to have them inside the fun fair? In the draft of the Bill they were absolutely excluded. Now the justification for allowing this Amendment is: "Though we still maintain what was in subsection (3), because it is outside the bounds of the fun fair we hold that this is quite permissible."

The Attorney-General: I must not express a view, although I have a very clear one. All I can say is that legally the only marionette or puppet show to which the Amendment applies is one which it was contemplated to have quite outside the fun fair. What was provided in the fun fair is another matter and does not arise.

Mr. Osborne: rose—

Several Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Osborne: I do not apologise for trying to address the House again, because I wish to put a totally different point.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Gentleman must ask for leave in seeking to speak twice.

Mr. Osborne: With the permission of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I want to make two points. The first is that I believe that the majority of hon. Members who voted four to one against this inclusion last week would feel if they were here now, that we were trying to do by Amendments and by a back-door[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am entitled to state my case.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: As one of those who voted in that way, I do not feel that.

Mr. Osborne: The hon. and learned Gentleman is queer, in any case.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: "Everyone is out of step, except our Johnny."

Mr. Osborne: The majority who voted freely last week, four to one, would, if they were in this House now, feel that we were trying to do by a back door method what was not permitted a week ago. May I state my other objection, which has not been stated at all? I am against this proposal on economic grounds. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Leslie Hale), when he moved a previous Amendment, said that something like 50,000 people from his constituency would want to come down to see the exhibition and the fun fair on Sunday.

Mr. Hale: I did not say anything of the kind. The precise words were, in answer to some frivolous speech from the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) who wanted to know where I stood, that I might be prepared to consider it if there were 50,000 of my constituents who wanted to see it on Sunday.

Mr. Osborne: My point is that the hon. Member for Oldham, West, wants the fun fair and the Exhibition to be open on Sunday and this will be an additional attraction for his people to come from Oldham to London. He said that they could not come on Saturday because they worked a five-and-a-half-day week and that the only time they could come was on Sunday.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not confining his remarks to the Amendment, which deals with the question of puppet or marionette shows. He is dealing with the general question, and this is not the occasion for that.

Mr. Osborne: Very good, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I put it this way? A marionette show held on Sunday will attract the constituents of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, to come and see the Exhibition on the Sunday. I think that my argument is valid. The hon. Member said that his constituents could only come to see the show on Sunday because they were working five and a half days a week—

Mr. Leslie Hale: The hon. Gentleman must not consistently misrepresent me. I made a speech on an Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) suggesting that the whole thing—fun fair, amusement park and everything—should be open on Sunday, and I said that, in general, my constituents would want a week-end if the fun fair and the Exhibition were open. I made no reference to marionette and puppet shows or to Captain Bligh's "Bounty." The hon. Gentleman might as well refer his argument to what was said a week ago last Tuesday as to go on dithering with these observations.

Mr. Osborne: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Oldham, West, but I think he will agree that if all these Amendments were rejected, including the one for the marionette show, his people would not come on Sunday because there would be less attraction for them, and that is my argument. The hon. Member said they would not come on Saturday because they would be working half a day. This is a serious argument.

Mr. Nicholson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. With great respect, I put it that it is making this debate rather ridiculous, if, when anyone puts forward a specific Amendment, the House has to hear all over again the whole argument which it has already heard many times.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). I could not agree more. I hope that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) will confine himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Osborne: I can quite understand that some hon. Members wish to get away and catch early trains—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but I am trying to state a point of view. I was about to give the actual travelling time for the constituents of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, to London and back.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am very sorry, but that question really cannot be relevant. The Amendment before the House is a narrow and perfectly simple one.

Mr. Osborne: I bow to your Ruling. Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I shall not put that argument forward now, but shall try to make my point on Third Reading. I would, however, say that I feel that we are trying to do by Amendment what the House said last week it would not permit to be done—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."]—and I hope the Amendment will be rejected.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I trust it will not be taken by the House that this is an attempt to go by a back door round what has been done before. For some of these things I have sympathy and I am not conscious of trying by a back door to elude a decision of the House. Indeed, I intend to vote against some of the later Amendments. A case for the Amendment which has not so far been put is that at present the Exhibition is prohibited from providing on a Sunday in any part of it anything which can be interpreted as a puppet and marionette show, and this would apply to every single one of the things we have decided to have open, the South Bank exhibition, the exhibition of science and so on. It is within the knowledge of all of us that in such things we not infrequently have working models of one kind or another against which some meticulous critic might inform as being a puppet show. Even more wounding, somebody might bring it up to the Lord President as an occasion on which he was attempting to elude the clearly expressed view of the House. I should be very sorry if by a vote of this House it was decided that every working model in every part of the Exhibition should be closed—

Mr. Summers: Why is it not in the Bill?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am only saying that the House is free now to make a decision

Mr. Summers: It is not.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: What the Committee decided was a clear question, but think the House has always been in a position also to make its own decision. We are now deciding as a House. In this I am speaking purely for myself and against the views of some of my hon. Friends for whose opinions I have the greatest respect and in favour of the views of others of my hon. Friends for whose opinions I have great respect. It is clear that there is no party question.
All I say is that the House should consider that it would also risk the shutting down of any moving apparatus in any other part of the Exhibition. In this the Festival Gardens Company will have to exercise a due and proper regard for the feelings of the people and the views expressed in this House. The responsibility is not the responsibility of the Minister; it is the responsibility of those who give the licence. This is not the licence for the show but an indication of views to the Festival Gardens Company. I trust that if they were to have a puppet or marionette show it would not be of the nature of some which have been described but the sort of thing which the House has had clearly in mind this afternoon. My personal opinion is that the company can reasonably be given that discretion and I shall vote for the Amendment if necessary. When I say that I am in no way attempting to give a lead from the Front Bench about the matter. Unlike the Attorney-General, who has given legal advice and no more, on this occasion I can only speak for myself, so I would again remind hon. Members who are here or are entering the Chamber that no official lead is being given to the party on this occasion from the Front Bench.
Amendment agreed to.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The following Amendment in page 2, line 26, in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland), appears to be consequential upon the Amendment which, I understand, has been carried by the House. Perhaps it could be moved and seconded formally.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, at the end, to insert:
or any such vessel as aforesaid.

So great is the speed of legislation that the Amendment as it appears on the Order Paper has now become slightly out of order, and I must ask you, Sir, to accept this very slight manuscript Amendment to the printed words. The Amendment is purely consequential, of course, to prevent Captain Bligh's "Bounty" from sailing astern out of the Bill. As by the passing of the last Amendment the words
but shall not be taken to include 
have already been added to the Clause, these same words need to be omitted from the present Amendment, and only the words
or any such vessel as aforesaid
inserted.

Mr. J. Hudson: I beg to second the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, at the end, to insert:
or any children's pony-carriage drives.
In this case the same point of wording arises as on the previous Amendment. I do not think it is necessary to explain the purpose of the Amendment except to say that it is proposed to have 10 Shetland ponies which will be drawing broughams, hansoms, etc., in order to give an atmosphere of 1851 to the main carriageway of the Exhibition. They will be purely for children, and I hope that no exception will be taken to the Amendment.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to second the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. G. Lang: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, at the end, to insert:
or any special illuminations.
This is a very important Amendment and I cannot conceive that any Member of the House will object to it. The greater part of the illuminations are essential, and if they were not provided after dark much of the best part of the Exhibition would be out of action. It has already been arranged that various parts of London shall be specially illuminated, and it would be particularly unfortunate if the Gardens were the one part of


London which was not illuminated. I do not think anything more need be said. I commend the Amendment to the House as one which is innocent and essential, and I think that even those who take a different view from myself on certain matters will agree that the more illuminations there are, the better it will be for us and for them.

Mr. J. Hudson: I beg to second the Amendment, particularly after the warning by my right hon. and learned Friend of the consequences which may arise in certain parts of London which will depend on special illuminations in the earlier part of the week. If they are not allowed on Sundays, probably the whole thing will have to be shut off and the Exhibition plunged into Stygian gloom. This in itself is sufficient reason why we should not contemplate turning off the special illuminations because of any Sabbatarian principle.
I agree that the further we go with these positive Amendments, the more illogical—as everybody now seems to admit—we become; but as the House of Commons now seems to have plunged into working according to instinct rather than according to logic, apparently logical argument is not sought regarding any of these Amendments. I have, however, at least tried to make a case that it would be illogical to turn out the special illuminations and to make this part of the Exhibition impossible by reducing it to darkness.

Lieut. - Colonel Elliot: Major Milner—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would wish to address the Chair in the correct fashion.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I apologise for that accidental error, which, I assure you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, was not meant to be in any way derogatory to the occupant of the Chair.
This Amendment does not go quite so easily and straightforwardly as was suggested by its mover and seconder. "Special illuminations" might contain fireworks. I honestly do not think that that is what the House had in mind when it voted last week. It might include a tremendous blaze of lights all over the place. As the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) said, this is now a

matter, not of logic, but of instinct. The phrase, "lit up like a fairground" is not, I think, the thing which the House had in mind when it voted last week or has in mind when making the modification which it is now making.
I ask the Attorney-General two points. As far as I can understand, "special illuminations" might include fireworks. As I say, I honestly do not think that is what the House had in mind. Secondly, what would be the legal position if the mover were to withdraw the Amendment? Would it not then fall back, as he said earlier, on the general principle—that is to say, that a reasonable amount of illumination incidental to the Gardens would be perfectly legal? I frankly do not think that the widely extended use of illuminations is what the House had in mind or now has in mind. Furthermore, this matter concerns Sundays in mid-summer and under summer time, when the opportunity for special illuminations will be very small. I do not think it desirable that the Amendment should be pressed.

The Attorney-General: I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will reconsider his position on that point. This happens to be the one Amendment on which I express a view on the merits. It seems to me that it is absolutely legal to provide the illuminations of the kind contemplated, which would cause no breach of the Sunday Observance Acts whatever.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: No fireworks?

The Attorney-General: I can give an absolute undertaking that there will be no fireworks. There will be a certain amount of floodlighting, lighting of trees and that sort of thing, and a few fairy lights—that is all. They will be there all the week and will be continued on Sundays from May till October. On Sundays, I think, the place closes earlier, and I suppose that in June and July there would not be any question of lighting because it would still be daylight at closing time, but in October and in May, of course, the Gardens would be lit up on a Sunday.
These illuminations are intended to be an integral part of the design of the main features of the Gardens, including the main vista, which occupies, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman probably knows much better than I do, as he is


a member of the Festival Council, a large part of the whole area, which would really cease to exist altogether after dark unless it was illuminated by floodlighting. It will be seen from the map that the main vista is one of the great features of these Gardens, and unless they are lit up by floodlighting and that kind of thing, the Gardens would really be quite unusable after dark on a Sunday. I think there is nothing objectionable there.

Mr. Marlowe: Are these words required at all? Surely lighting would be allowed under the ordinary law?

The Attorney-General: That is exactly what I said, but the difficulty we are in, as I explained to the House I think quite frankly, is that on Second Reading the Lord President of the Council gave an undertaking that we would not try to apply the technical position too technically, but would try to administer the matter in accordance with the sense of the House. There are illuminations of a quite different kind in some fairgrounds. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman talked of fairground illuminations. Although I am quite certain in advising the House that it would be legal to have illuminations in the Festival Gardens without this Amendment, we do not want to do what would be technically legal if it is against the sense of the House. That is the object hon. Members had in mind when they put down the Amendment. They want to get guidance for the proper and seemly administration of the Gardens.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The word "illuminations" is a term of art in certain parts of the country, and "special illuminations" is capable of a certain extension. I take it, from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, that the illuminations which are contemplated on a Sunday would be nothing like the illuminations widely publicised in the northern parts of England?

The Attorney-General: I am in a difficulty there because, although I believe those illuminations are extremely popular in the northern parts of England, I have not actually seen them. I do not know, and would not risk saying without having seen them—although the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low), is out of the

Chamber—whether they are seemly or not; but, as far as we can understand from the description we have been given, all the designs have been specially selected having regard to their effect when illuminated at night as well as their effect when no illumination is necessary. As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, the Gardens contain a layout of different designs which after dark would lose their effect entirely if there were not this kind of illumination.
I think it is also known that in other parts of London during this period special emphasis is to be laid on illuminations, floodlighting and matters of that kind. It would be odd if, although they are legally entitled to do it, as they will be, inside the Gardens they were not able to put on illuminations which they were able to put on outside. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that some of these floodlighting effects are exceedingly beautiful and make some of our lovely things more lovely at night than they sometimes appear in the daytime. I assure the House that there is nothing unseemly about this.
It may be that we were wrong in putting down the Amendment—I said "we" but I mean whoever put the Amendment down—but there were some cautious people who sit behind me who wanted to be quite sure that we did not get into legal difficulties. I do not think we should, but the Amendment has been moved and we would like to hear the sense of the House upon it.

6.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We have received two useful assurances from the Attorney-General, first that this does not cover fireworks and, secondly, a description of what was in mind. Although these activities are not in any way illegal, he has now put an interpretation on them for the guidance of the House. I think that in the spirit of the proposals set out by the Attorney-General, I should feel he had given a clear indication of what it is proposed to do, and I should be perfectly ready to agree. I think that, as far as I am concerned, he has met my objections.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, at the end, to insert, "or any children's zoo."
I am informed that it is intended to have what is called a "pets' corner" in the Festival Gardens. It will be completely operated and staffed from the London Zoological Gardens and I am told there would be no savage beasts of any kind and that the only animals there will be of a semi-domesticated nature. [An HON. MEMBER: "What are they?"] If anyone wants to know what they are, I would say that they include anything from a zebra to a domestic cat. This will be an ordinary pets' corner for the children. I am sure the House will not wish to debate the matter any further.

Mr. J. Hudson: I beg to second the Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I hope that this Amendment will be accepted, but once again I rise to draw on the good temper—if it still exists, as I hope it does—and the knowledge of the Attorney-General. We have always to be careful in drafting an Act of Parliament. Are the words, "children's zoo" all right from the legal point of view?—[Laughter.] This is a perfectly serious question and I am sure that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale) will be the first to appreciate the point.
In the first place, "zoo" is an abbreviation which we have come to accept in our normal language and I am asking, as a layman, whether it is proper for insertion in an Act of Parliament and whether "children's zoo" is one to which children are admitted, or whether the explanation given by the hon. Member is in fact a definition of a children's zoo. We all know that the Zoological Gardens in Regent's Park are opened every Sunday, and the hon. Member says that this is to be a pets' corner. That definition might be considered to embrace this honourable House in the opinion of some people. I am asking whether the drafting is sufficiently watertight to go into an Act of Parliament without danger of misinterpretation.

The Attorney-General: I would not say that this drafting is absolutely watertight, but I think it is quite sufficient for its purpose, which is to exclude the possibility of any common informer's action and to give guidance to the authorities on what they may do. I think, again, that this is a thing which may be legal

without express permission and it is intended, I understand, that the zoo should be of a limited nature. The word "zoo" is all right, and I think the words "children's zoo" do not mean a zoo containing only children but that children may visit it to look at other semi-domestic animals.

Mr. Deedes: I support the Amendment, but I think a relevant point applying to this Amendment and to others is whether it is intended that any special charge be made, or will the admission charge to the Gardens specifically include the children's zoo and other entertainments?

The Attorney-General: There will be a special charge. I believe it will be a small one, but I do not know the exact amount.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, at the end, to insert:
or any underground grotto or series of grottos or elevated tree walk if designed for visual or scenic effect.
This is a somewhat more unusual Amendment, requiring a trifle more explanation, although it is really the simplest of all and the simplest to explain. The grotto and the tree walk are to be rather special constructions. The former is to be a traditional form of grotto, rather on the lines of that in 1851. There are some additional scenic effects. I am told that people will walk through four beautiful caverns depicting earth, fire, wind and water. We shall all look at the third cavern with special interest. There will be no music in the grotto; it will be perfectly quiet. There is frankly some doubt about whether there will be a charge for admission on Sunday. Above the grotto is to be a beautiful tree walk, so designed as to afford a magnificent vista of the whole Festival Gardens. This is something of a horticultural chef d'ourre; there is no harm or vice about it. I hope that the House will accept this Amendment without hesitation.

Mr. Paton: I beg to second the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am afraid that I am not convinced. No one can say that this is a special children's amusement, and I feel that this is simply getting round to the ordinary fun fair. We all


know that there are in fun fairs attractions with such names as the "Mysterious River Ride." I know that this is not supposed to be the same, but it has the same purpose—one goes into it to get away from the rest of the show. It might lead to undesirable consequences. All that I can say is that I am not in favour of the Amendment, and if it were pressed to a Division I am afraid that I should have to vote against it.

The Attorney-General: In that case I hope that it will not be pressed to a Division. I believe that in the Tea Room there is a plan of the layout of the Pleasure Gardens which is open for inspection by Members. If they look at it, they will find that there is not really any objection to this proposal. This is not the kind of thing one finds in a fun fair, with dark corners where odd things may or may not happen. This is really to be quite a feature of the Festival Gardens as a whole. Here, again, I am sure that the matter could be dealt with under the ordinary law and under this Bill. The reason for the Amendment is that we do not want to be involved in litigation throughout the Festival.
This feature would be perfectly legal under the ordinary law and under the special provisions of this Bill. It is not a showground feature. If the Amendment is defeated, we shall be in the odd position that although the law clearly permits it, and in addition this Bill clearly permits it, the Lord President of the Council will have to use his administrative discretion, which is rather a heavy burden, though I know he will bear it to the best of his ability. To forbid something which the law and this Bill allow would be a very odd state of affairs.
The tree walk is not in any way a stunt. It is really quite a novel and unusual feature. It will be a walk on boards, not underneath the trees but at the level of the first branches. It will be quite effective and pretty. I cannot see that it will be a source of any great immorality or of any tendency towards irreligion. The grotto is to be in the traditional form of a grotto. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale), has said, it is to be provided as a direct link with the 1851 Exhibition. There is to be no

music in it and probably no charge for admission. I venture to think, and I believe that here I have on my side—I would not express this view about it otherwise—the opinion of those who took the other view about the Sunday opening of the fun fair as a whole, that this feature does not come within the category of a fun fair feature.
It is undoubtedly legal under the present law. If Battersea Park resumes its old character as Battersea Park after the Festival, this feature may remain there and be open on Sunday without question. Apart from the ordinary law, this Bill, in its existing terms, again legalises it in Clause I (1, b). We desire the Amendment for the reason I have already explained to the House. I am not very much concerned about it because this is not one of the matters about which I think there is any legal doubt. The Members who put down the Amendment did so because they want to be sure that we have not to go to the extent of fighting actions brought by common informers in regard to this Festival. We shall be exposed to common informer actions from a nuisance point of view, even if there is little prospect of any penalties being obtained, and we wish as far as possible to clear away all doubts of anyone who may have an excessively technical approach. I consider that there is no doubt about the matter, that this is legal under the ordinary law, and is re-legalised, if I may so put it, by the express permission for the opening of the Festival Gardens.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) will reconsider his view in this matter. So far as I can understand what is intended, this is to be merely a piece of landscape gardening. It is not even suggested that there should be a hermit, as there often was in grottos like this in the 18th century. I am sure that this is an innocent proposal, and that it is in the best Victorian tradition that there should be a grotto. It will have great charm. My right hon. and gallant Friend did not advance any reasoned views against this proposal; it just seemed to offend him. I rise expressly to ask him to reconsider his view and to allow this most harmless form of recreation.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I shared with my right hon. and gallant Friend the somewhat suspicious view which he expressed about this Amendment. After all, there can be various kinds of grottos, and this Amendment is so drafted as to include all kinds of grottos. I well recollect that the grotto at the Earls Court Exhibition and the one at the Wembley Exhibition were both of an amusing character, rather in the nature of a fun fair.

The Attorney-General: I was too young.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman probably remembers the one at Blackpool better. The explanation which the Attorney-General has given has, I must confess, satisfied my doubts in regard to the matter, although I was, like my right hon. and gallant Friend, opposed to the Amendment when I saw it on the Order Paper. Now it is quite clear that this is to be a grotto without any funny things or anything of an unseemly character happening as one goes round. Accordingly, I think we can allow this Amendment to be inserted without any further discussion.

Mr. J. Hudson: I am still in grave doubt, due to the fact that I thought the Government had rather accepted the appeal which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) made to them. The Government are apparently willing, if he threatens a Division on this matter, to allow the Amendment to go, because they believe that they can deal with the issue by means of the ordinary law.

The Attorney-General: No. If I may speak again, by leave of the House, and if my hon. Friend will permit me, I wish to make it absolutely clear that if the House rejects this Amendment it will not be done, although I am quite certain that we could make this provision under the ordinary law. That was the whole point of the Lord President's undertaking on Second Reading. He said that we could not cover everything technically in this Bill, but that he would see that the sense of the House and the spirit of its decisions were carried out. If this Amendment is defeated—and I hope that it will not be—we shall not have a grotto.
Amendment agreed to.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, at the end, to insert:
or any boating lake.
This is a consequential Amendment. It is a proposal to have a boating lake similar to those already in existence in many London parks which are open on Sundays. The boats are intended for children only. They are petrol-driven, they are specially constructed for the purpose, and, of course, they are under adequate supervision. I suppose there is no way in which we can guarantee that small men and women will not have a ride if they want to, but this is intended to be a children's boating lake. When I sat down a little prematurely last time, I found that I had failed to convince the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). I did not want to go on talking about a matter which I felt sure would be readily accepted by both sides of the House. If he would give an affirmative nod, it would enable me to resume my seat.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Lieut.-Colonel Elliot indicated assent.

Mr. Lang: I beg to second the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Sir Ralph Glyn: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, at the end, to insert:
or any miniature railway adapted wholly or mainly for children to ride in.
The railway mentioned in the Amendment is a miniature one entirely designed for children to ride in. It is not a railway which takes up much labour. It is known as the Peter Pan Railway, and I think that it will be a great attraction. It is not necessary to say anything more except that it is different from a scenic railway or a railway switchback. In addition, it is noiseless, which was not the case with regard to some of the other suggestions to which I had objection. It will provide a great deal of amusement for children, and I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Lang: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Deedes: I should like to have some information about charges. Can the Attorney-General say anything about a


special charge? There is a difference between entertainments for which charges are made, which therefore tend to become sideshows, and attractions of this kind which are altogether desirable and which are designed to enhance the entertainment value of the Gardens. If this kind of thing enhances the entertainment value of the Gardens and attracts more people to pay admission, well and good; but there is a difference between that and a series of sideshows for which special charges should be made.

The Attorney-General: I think that there must be a special charge unless we were to raise considerably the charge for entrance to the Gardens as a whole, and thus spread the revenue so received over the different items which themselves involve expenditure. That would not really be fair, because if I go there on a Sunday I shall not want to use the children's railway, unless I take my children with me. Therefore, there is no reason why I should pay a charge for it. Lots of people will not want to use it; on the other hand, some will. Therefore, we have a comparatively low charge for entrance to the Gardens as a whole, and then an additional charge, which will not be high, for the special entertainments which involve additional expenditure.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, to leave out:
or puppet or marionette show.
I move this Amendment in the absence of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). It is purely consequential.

Mr. J. Hudson: I beg to second the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 30, after "wrestling," insert "or."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

6.35 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
It is not necessary for me to say anything other than that I should like to thank the House for the careful consideration given to this Bill. I will not say that I agree with everything that has happened

during the proceedings, but the House has been most attentive and I think it has been very considerate today. I should like to thank hon. Members for their co-operation in trying to improve the Bill according to their views on how it ought to be improved.
We have had an interesting series of decisions on the basis of a free vote. That is always interesting in the House of Commons. I confess that last week I involved the House—at least it was not me altogether: it was the House and the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) and one or two others—in a difficulty. On that date the House got into a rather chaotic situation. I was genuinely sorry for hon. Members who came into the Chamber and who, not having heard the discussion, found the greatest difficulty o in knowing how to vote. That was an interesting occasion.
I wish to thank the House for the consideration they have given to this Bill. Let us hope that the world situation will improve and that our people can have a time next year which will cheer them up, buck them up and make them happier than otherwise they might be. Let us hope that nothing happens to stop this great Festival. I am grateful to the House.

6.38 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure that we all echo the last words of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council when he expressed the hope that the world situation may be such as to permit us to go ahead with and to enjoy the Festival which was planned in happier times. I think that the country, and indeed the House, has been in sympathy with the general conception of the Festival. There have been aspects of the Festival to which criticism has been directed; but that is so with all human endeavour, and I am sure that the Lord President did not expect anything else.
On the whole this Bill has been of a non-party nature, and the vote to which the Lord President referred was a completely non-party vote. As he said himself, his own party was split right down the middle.

Mr. H. Morrison: I meant the funny occasion where I thought we got into a difficult position. I meant the one on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) which


finally I supported, it having been rejected previously by my right hon. and learned Friend.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Gilbert wrote a passage about what would happen if a lot of Members of Parliament got into close proximity and began thinking for themselves. This shows how wise the Victorians were and with what danger we go against any of their decisions, including the decision to respect Sunday with very great and meticulous observance. I can only say that we are, of course, overshadowed today by the world situation and by the news which we receive. I am sure that the Lord President has expressed the feeling and wish of the whole House in his hope that the situation may moderate and that it may be possible for us to go ahead with this Festival, and in the spirit in which it was originally planned.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Osborne: I should like to make one or two observations which I know will be unpopular. The Lord President said that he hoped that the position in the world would improve to allow us to enjoy the festivities when the Festival is opened in six months time. It is tragic that here we talk about the opening of the Festival on Sundays when we are overshadowed by dangers both at home and abroad which may destroy everything we have got.
I voted against the Second Reading of this Bill, not merely on religious grounds, but on economic grounds. I say that, as things are at the present time, we have nothing whatever to be festive about. We are on the very verge of evils and dangers such as the nation has never before known, and it is not the duty of hon. Members of this House to close their eyes to obvious dangers, and, instead, say "Let us cheer up." By discussing here today the opening of a fun fair—[HON. MLMBERS: "We are not"]—well, the Sunday opening of the Festival, at a time when the whole of our civilisation may be endangered, we are ignoring the urgent and desperate position in which we now find ourselves, and I want to make my protest.
I want to ask the Lord President if he will be good enough to answer one question—what he thinks this nation has at the present time to be festive about?

Nothing at all. On the contrary, the need is that we should fix our attention and that of our people on rearmament, re-equipping ourselves and increasing our production so as to get things into much better shape. By concentrating on this Festival idea, the Government are doing the country real harm in diverting attention to something that does not matter and failing to put first things first. I make my protest on those grounds.

Mr. Porter: If I may, as one who voted for the opening of the fun fair, I should like to have the pleasure of expressing my appreciation of the spirit of sweet reasonableness which has prevailed in the House today. I wish also to express my appreciation of the developments which have taken place in the course of this afternoon's debate, and only to add that, while I can understand and appreciate the point of view of those who have opposed this Bill on good religious grounds, I cannot understand any opposition to it purely as bad economics.

6.42 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Before this Bill leaves the House for another place, may I, as one who, like my hon. Friend, voted against the Second Reading, when we were concentrating our attention on the Sunday observance issue, say that I do not share his lugubrious opinion in regard to the Festival as a whole. I would not quarrel with him in what he has said about the world situation, but it is characteristic of the British people and of this House that we can maintain a sufficient sense of proportion, so that, however dark the clouds, we can discuss children riding a pony in a Festival like this. It is a tradition of the British people.
I think our discussions have shown two things: first, that the House of Commons can shape legislation extremely well without the guidance of Ministers and the use of the Whips. The Committee and Report stages of this Bill have been admirably conducted, all the better for free expression, as in the way in which comrade often attacked comrade. Secondly, one moral lesson has emerged from the whole of this discussion, and it is this. Let this be a stepping-stone to a thorough overhaul of the Sunday Observance statutes of this country. The learned Attorney-General indicated, I think on Second Reading, that he would give sympathetic attention to a Private Member's


Bill to be introduced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald), and would give it facilities. I hope that is so, but that Bill deals only with the common informer, and I think that some Government—and it might as well be this one—should without delay tackle the whole question of Sunday observance legislation. I think they will be surprised by the amount of unanimity in the country to help them to shape that legislation, and, meanwhile, the Festival of Britain can go forward.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (PENSIONS) BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 4th December.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 4.—(WIDOWS' PENSION.)

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 39, to leave out the words "may be," and insert the words "shall not be less than."—[Mr. Turton.]

Question again proposed, "That the words 'may be' stand part of the Clause."

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: When the Committee adjourned, I was replying to the speech made by the Financial Secretary, who has very kindly informed me that he is unable, because of official duties, to be present with us this evening. I regret his absence, but I make no complaint, because we know that Financial Secretaries are very busy people. I also regret his absence because I should have liked him to have the opportunity of withdrawing, or at least amending, some of the observations he made in his speech in reply to this Amendment, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), with the intention of putting in a floor, providing a minimum below which no pension would fall.
The hon. Gentleman, in answering that proposal, said there were three reasons for the non-acceptance of the Amendment. The first reason was that the wording of the Amendment would be such as to make widow's pensions taxable. I know

that that was not the intention of my hon. Friend, but it just shows how careful we have to be with regard to tax law if the effect of altering "may be" into "shall not be less than" is to make all widow's pensions taxable. The Financial Secretary stated that, as the Bill now stands, the pension to the widow will be free of tax, and we knew beforehand, from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that the lump sum or the death gratuity would be free of tax and Estate Duty. I must say that it has not been made clear to me—though perhaps that is my fault—that the pension to the widow, and I suppose also that to the children, would in fact be paid free of Income Tax. If that is the position, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt confirm whether it is or not, I think the argument advanced by the Financial Secretary is indeed a cogent reason for not pressing this Amendment to a Division.
That was the first argument which the hon. Gentleman put against the Amendment, but he went on to say:
Secondly—and I think that this is probably the more serious objection—such a change would conflict with the whole principle of Civil Service pensions. Widows under Civil Service pensions schemes have their pensions calculated at one-third of the pension of the husband. I do not think that we can accept the introduction of a totally different principle. It could indeed be quoted as a precedent …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 158.]
and so on. This Bill, of course, applies to both judges and civil servants, but the speech of my hon. Friend dealt primarily with the position of county court judges. The speech of the Financial Secretary was in answer to that, and I should like to ask, since when has it been the case that judges are to be regarded as and treated as civil servants. They always are in totalitarian countries, and if it be the case, as the speech of the Financial Secretary would appear to indicate, that they are now regarded by the party opposite as civil servants and are to be treated as such, then that is an indication of the way in which we have gone under the present Government along the totalitarian road.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman forget that it was Mr. Baldwin who cut the judges' salaries at the same time as he cut those of civil servants?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not quite accurate; I think that cut was made with the consent of the judges.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember—I think it is right that I should say this in fairness to the judges—the strong protests that were made by the judges, and the circumstances in which the cut eventually came to be accepted by them. As originally proposed, the cut was imposed on the judges, as it was imposed on the civil servants. Strong protests were made on behalf of the judiciary, and the procedure was subsequently varied by the judges themselves making, as I recollect, a voluntary subvention to the State.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: That is exactly what I was saying, that on the occasion when the cuts were made in 1931 the judges made a voluntary surrender. It was not imposed, and therefore, they resisted the principle of the cut. But the position should really be made absolutely clear. The judges of the High Court and of the county court are not civil servants, and should not be treated as civil servants, and I regret that the observations of the Financial Secretary on the last occasion in this Committee are capable of being so interpreted and regarded, perhaps, as constituting a precedent for the claim that they are always to be regarded as being in the same position as civil servants on these matters.
Whatever be done with regard to the High Court or county court judges in this Bill, it will constitute no precedent whatsoever for the civil servants. Indeed, one of the difficulties with regard to this Bill is that it covers in its embrace judges and civil servants. I think one might even put it as high as this; that one of the erors of this Bill is that the judges are only treated as comparable with civil servants when it is a case of resisting any improvement for county court judges, and that they are not treated as comparable with civil servants when there is any question of increasing the judges' pay. I say that—

The Chairman: I am sorry to intervene but the hon. and learned Gentleman has hardly linked his remarks in any particular to the Amendment

before the Committee. The question before the Committee is solely one of amount, and the general questions to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has addressed himself are not relevant at all.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I submit, on a point of order, that I am surely entitled to rebut, answer and destroy, if I can, the arguments advanced by the Financial Secretary in resisting this Amendment. If I may draw your attention, Major Milner, to column 158 of HANSARD for the 4th December, you will see that he based his main objection to the acceptance of the principle of this Amendment on the ground that acceptance of it would conflict with the whole principle of Civil Service pensions. Surely, I am in order in saying that there is a valid and important distinction to be drawn and maintained between the position of judges and that of civil servants, and in seeking as I have been doing, I hope not at undue length, to establish that the hon. Gentleman's arguments advanced as the main reason for opposition to this Amendment are really fallacious.

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman may be entitled to make that distinction if, in fact, the Financial Secretary did draw it, but I think he must stop there. He was about to proceed to the question of judges' salaries which I cannot think has the least bearing on the point under discussion.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: With great respect, Major Milner, I was not going any further with regard to judges' salaries. I had, in fact concluded what I wanted to say, but I am not surprised that perhaps you felt I might digress at too great a length on a subject which we have already discussed in very considerable detail, and which I trust we shall not tonight have to discuss again.
I just want to say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in dealing with the main point of this Amendment. It is quite true that the amount of the widow's pension must vary according to the length of service where such pension depends on length of service, but I think it will be a bad thing from the point of view of the country if the effect of this Bill, in particular cases, is that a really microscopic pension is paid to the widows of people who served the country well. I am not going to press for the minimum


suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, but there is a danger under this Bill that the pension payable to the widow may be very small indeed.
Therefore, I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider between now and the report stage whether it would not be possible to insert some provision to the effect that the pension payable under an Act of Parliament to the widow of a judicial officer should in no circumstances be less than a particular figure. He may say that that is quite impossible; he may use the actuarial argument—one does not know—but I personally would not like to think that the widow's pension will be so microscopic as to be in no way adequate and will bear no relation to what this Committee would like to do.

Mr. Keenan: What would the minimum be?

Sir Patrick Spens: The Amendment before the House raises the specific issue of whether the widows' pensions are to be mandatory or merely ex gratia payments by the Government. As I listened to the Attorney-General when he was explaining one of the earlier Clauses, I understood that the deduction of one-fourth from the pension of judges resulted actuarially in the justification for the payment of the lump sums on retirement and on death, and that on that basis they should be free from tax.
When I first studied the Bill, I thought the result was that the pensions for widows and children were purely ex gratia payments, but when I came to Clause 8 I found that was not so at all. Under Clause 8 there is to be a contribution from the lump sum payment which I gather, actuarially again, has something to do with what is likely to be—although it seems to me to be a perfectly impossible figure to calculate—the amount to be paid to widows and children of judges; so that in both cases the judges are paying actuarially for what are called the benefits they are getting under this Bill.
7.0 p.m.
Under the Bill deductions are mandatory and benefits are purely discretionary and though the judges pay for these benefits by deductions from their pensions and

their estate would have to suffer by deductions from the lump sum, there would be no sort of legal right whatever for anybody, either the judge or anybody representing his estate, to make any legal claim for any of these pensions. That raises a question of the very highest principle. Here the judges are being put in a position where they have no legal right whatever to these so-called benefits. In theory of law they are entirely at the discretion of the Government for the time being and the Executive. Although I very greatly appreciate the suggestion that by doing it in this way the judges and their estates will escape taxation, I feel that it introduces a principle about which all of us ought to hesitate very much indeed, because for the first time we are putting the judges in a position where they are at the mercy and discretion of the Government of the day.
There is not the slightest doubt, of course, that under this Government the Treasury will authorise automatically the sums which are included in these general benefits, but no one can foresee what Government is going to be in power 20, 30 or 50 years hence; and I thought it had long been an absolutely fundamental doctrine of our constitution that the Executive should have no sort of financial hold over the judges of this country except by taxation authorised by the House. Therefore, this is really something which goes a very long way and which, if I may respectfully say so, is a matter which ought to be carefully considered by His Majesty's judges and those who are advising them in the matter.
It is well known that where there is an extreme party in power in the modern world the first people they attack are the judges. The judges and the bishops run a near race before they find themselves in trouble. I can assure hon. Members that that is so. If anybody takes the trouble to read the history of what has happened to the judges in certain countries behind the Iron Curtain, he will realise very quickly that the judges are the first people to be attacked and that the Executive desire to have a handle by which they can make judges give a decision in accordance with the policy of the day.
I emphasise that the one thing which has enabled British judges to achieve their world-wide reputation for impartiality and strength on the bench is the fact that they


have always been able to say that they were completely independent of the Executive and that nobody suggested that the Executive had any sort of method by which they could bring any influence to bear upon them. I believe that British judges will continue to be equally independent and strong always, but I know from personal experience that in administering justice in a nation which is in a semi-revolutionary situation, time after time the judges have to make decisions between the subject and the Executive; and if ever the judges gave a decision in favour of the Government and against the subject one would find every sort of person to suggest reasons why those judges had decided in favour of the Executive.
If this Bill goes through in its present form, I can foresee in days to come somebody saying that a judge decided this or that way because he was anxious whether he or his family would get the benefits under this Bill. It is wrong in principle, and I do not think the Bill should go through in this form. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), said, we have tied up in this Bill judges and people who are not judges. I say most emphatically that judges should be put in a special position. It would be a good example to those countries which have different views that we in this country, when we make up our minds to give the judges something, should give it to them with the legal right to demand it and that any necessary provisions in relation to taxation should be expressly provided for in the Bill.
The Amendment before us is to make the widows' pensions mandatory. The judge makes a contribution under Clause 8 towards his widow's pension and yet there is no legal right to that pension. I most strongly support the view that words should he inserted to provide that if anything is payable to the judge or his estate, it ought to be made mandatory That is the only right solution. I hope that before this Bill becomes law that point will be met and that judges will be put in a special position with regard to this matter.

The Attorney-General: I will deal presently with the points which were made by the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens).
whose distinguished career we all recognise and the weight of whose comments on any matter such as this is, of course, considerable. But I must say now that I am beginning to become extremely pessimistic and unhappy about the future of this Bill. As I have said before, I have always been one of those who thought it would be right to meet the position of the judges. I have said on my own account, and not as a Member of the Government, various things about that which have not been altogether popular with some of my colleagues behind me.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Hear, hear.

The Attorney-General: Even if I get into trouble for saying them, I shall go on saying the things that I think. I am sure my hon. Friend does not think any the less of me for that. I was, therefore, in favour of this Bill as providing some assistance to the judges. I said—and I ventured to repeat it when we were discussing this matter earlier—that those of us who want to see the position of the judges improved must resist the temptation of making the better the enemy of the good.
I must tell the Committee quite firmly that this Amendment would wholly upset and destroy the basic plan of this pension scheme. I have no doubt that some hon. Members who have hitherto been inclined to support various Amendments to the Bill, have not perhaps fully recognised the results of it. As the hon. and learned Gentleman fully realises, this Amendment would seriously diminish some of the effects which would otherwise accrue. As I explained at an earlier stage of our discussions, it would expose both the lump sum or death gratuity and the widow's pension, aggregated as they would be as part of the estate of the dead judge, not to Income Tax but to Death Duty, and this might be very substantial according to the private estate of the judge concerned.
It would completely destroy the fifty-fifty basis on which this scheme for quite new pensions for judges' widows and judges' children—pensions which did not exist before—has been brought into existence, and has been accepted by the judges themselves and by the Treasury. I am bound to tell the Committee that the


Treasury are not prepared in the existing economic position of the country to go further than they have already gone on the basis of the fifty-fifty scheme.
Before I come to what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, and which might more logically follow immediately, I want to pass to another matter even though it involves a break in the sequence—

Sir P. Spens: Before the Attorney-General passes from that point, may I say that I fully realise the fact that the trouble is the obligation to Death Duty, but nothing in the fifty-fifty scheme would be interfered with, provided a special provision were inserted stating that the benefits under this Bill should not be liable to Death Duty; they would be put in a special position.

The Attorney-General: That is perfectly true, but I should think myself that it would be very dangerous in respect of any class of the community, special though the class of judges undoubtedly is, to put them in an exceptional position in regard to taxation, whether Income Tax or Death Duty. One can see that once that precedent had been created in regard to a particular class, there might be strong claims for its extension to another class. It has hitherto been a fundamental principle of the financial policy of this country that taxation is imposed evenly upon everybody according to their respective incomes, and the rest of it, but that there are no special categories of people who are taken out of the fiscal system of the country altogether. I certainly would not feel able, in Committee on this Bill, to accept the introduction of that kind of principle into our constitution and into our fiscal system.

Mr. Coldrick: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend a question before he leaves this point? If I understood the Financial Secretary aright when he was speaking on this point on the last occasion we considered this matter, I understood him to say that the incomes from these pensions were not liable to Income Tax. If I understand the position aright, that is not the case with all other forms of pension. Why, therefore, is there this exceptional treatment in respect of pensions to legal officers?

The Attorney-General: That is not so. The hon. and learned Gentleman made a mistake about that, and I was about to correct him on it. That is why I wanted to depart for a moment from the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South. What the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said was that the lump sum and the pension, aggregated up as part of the estate of the deceased judge, which are not now—nor are they in any other corresponding case—subject to Death Duty, would be made liable to Death Duty. The pension itself when it comes to be paid will be subject to Income Tax just as other pensions are.
Having said that, I think I have cleared up that point. I think it was just a slip of the tongue. Before parting from the speech of the hon. and learned Member for a constituency which, characteristically enough and appropriately enough, always seems to me to be a complete contradiction in terms; it is most fitting that the hon. and learned Gentleman should represent it—South North-East Hants—

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I must inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, owing to the Act of Parliament passed by this Government during the last Parliament, the name of the constituency which I then represented has been changed from Daventry to South Northamptonshire.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman did not put down an Amendment or attract my attention to this situation. I would have sought to assist in the matter in order that, however contradictory some of his policies may be to each other, he would not represent a constituency the very name of which was a contradiction in terms.
Now I want to deal with the suggestion which he made that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had said anything to associate the position and status of His Majesty's judges with that of members of the Civil Service. In fact, he did nothing of the kind, and it is accepted by everybody that it is a fundamental part of our constitutional arrangements that the judges are completely independent of the Executive, and are not part of the Civil Service or under the control of the Executive in any way. The truth is that


what led the Financial Secretary into his remarks was that hon. Members opposite always draw an analogy between the judges and the Civil Service when that is going to be beneficial to the judges, and always reject the analogy in cases where it would be disadvantageous to the judges. I do not complain of that, because getting the best of both worlds is an attractive thing to attempt, although something which one rarely succeeds in achieving. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Hants—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman once again that the label fastened on this constituency by his party is South Northamptonshire. I am sorry that he should find it so confusing. Perhaps I shall have an opportunity of dealing with his constituency later.

The Attorney-General: My constituency bears a very respectable name. Perhaps in future I may be allowed to refer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency as Daventry, which would be much nicer. In the course of the short speech which he made on the Committee stage of this Bill, the hon. and learned Gentleman said:
I am surprised that he has advanced that argument, which really is not tenable in view of the fact chat the Chorley Committee's recommendations have been carried into effect with regard to so many civil servants…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 119.]
The fact is that when it is advantageous to draw upon the principles of the Chorley Report in regard to the Higher Civil Service, it is always said, "You have done this for the Civil Service; why not do it for the judges?" That being so, it must be equally legitimate, without in any way confusing the status of a judge with that of a civil servant, to refer the other way to the fact that the principle of this or that has never been accepted for a civil servant or for anybody else, and that it is one which is not acceptable for His Majesty's judges. That is all I want to say about that because, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree, it is completely a side issue.
I turn to the more fundamental and constitutional point about the fact that the payment of the lump sum and the pension is discretionary; and this is not a debating point at all, as was the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman regarding

confusion between judges and the Civil Service. I realise the significance of what the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South, said; but for many scores of years, if not many hundreds of years, Crown pensions of this kind have always been discretionary. I have never heard of one not being paid but, in fact, they have always been discretionary. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that we were introducing a new principle in relation to judges. That is not so. Judges have enjoyed pensions for some considerable time—I am afraid I have not in mind exactly how long—but the pensions have always been discretionary and nobody has ever raised any criticism or doubt about it.
I can see that in the circumstances which the hon. and learned Member envisaged, the circumstances of a totalitarian Government being established in this country, this situation might be open to objection, but surely the answer to that kind of objection is that it is not the slightest use our trying to legislate now for circumstances which might arise in this country if it became a totalitarian country. We cannot legislate on that basis. We must have faith in our country—and I hope we all have faith—and we must legislate on the basis that we shall maintain our position as one of the leading democracies of the world. It is no use trying to legislate in the view that some day we may become a totalitarian country, for nothing is more certain than that if that situation unhappily did arise all that we have done today, all that we have done in former Parliaments, and all that we do in succeeding Parliaments, would be swept away. The position of a judge in a totalitarian State would not be safeguarded in the slightest degree because today we provided that his pension, instead of being discretionary as it has been for a very long time, should be one to which he was entitled as a right.
I add only this. The hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South, can, of course, move an Amendment making both the judges' pensions and the widows' pensions mandatory, although in this Amendment we are dealing only with widows' pensions; but I earnestly suggest that he should first consult the judges about the matter. I certainly see no way in that case in which we could avoid ex-


posing the lump sum and the aggregated pension to taxation in the ordinary course, and I am sure that the judges would feel that an alteration of the practice which hitherto has been followed without any difficulty at all would be highly prejudicial to them and to their widows and children.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If any of the judges read the accounts of these debates I am sure they will have no reason at all to express gratitude to the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller). In a Question which he put down and which appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 24th November, the hon. and learned Gentleman asked the Attorney-General to publish a list of these pensions and lump sums as they were to be given to the different recipients. In doing so, the hon. and learned Gentleman directed the attention of many hon. Members to what hitherto they had not known about the Bill. The result is that, whenever I hear the very persuasive remarks of the Attorney-General, I then turn back to see what this Bill means in practice, and I wonder whether hon. Members on both sides fully appreciate exactly what it does mean.
I put certain Amendments on the Paper and, after hearing a persuasive speech by the Attorney-General, who softened my heart, I withdrew them but then I turned back and I could not escape the list of figures which the Attorney-General gave about these pensions. I turn once again to see, in the columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 24th November, exactly what kind of widows' pensions are being granted under the Bill, and I must say that I should find it very difficult to defend them before an audience of old-age pensioners or of ordinary widows who were asking for an increase in their pensions.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of order. The scope of the Amendment is very narrow. As I understand it, it is merely a question of whether there should be a minimum level imposed below which no widow's pension should be allowed to fall. Is it in order to discuss, not the question of the minimum, but the full range of widows' pensions?

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I was waiting for

the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, to come to that point.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I want to know exactly what this minimum means, so I turn to the figures in the answer given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If we are to discuss this minimum we must understand exactly what the Bill involves in actual payments and, in the column dealing with widows' pensions, I find that the widow of a Lord Chancellor is to receive £1,250 a year, which is £24 a week. The pension of the widow of a Lord Chief Justice amounts to £20 a week. I submit that, on the whole, these sums are very reasonable.
What I cannot understand is that there are anomalies in this list, because when we come to the widow of a county court judge—and a county court judge is presumably a more humble person than the higher judges—we find that the poor widow has to subsist on £6 10s. a week.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Gentleman will also note that if the county court judge has not sat for five years, the pension can-be as low as two guineas a week.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: That illustrates the point I am making. There are frightful anomalies in the case of the lower paid judges when we compare them with the extraordinary sum of £24 a week to be granted to the Lord Chancellor's widow. In Scotland we find that the widow of a Lord Justice Clerk is to receive £17 a week. The widow of a judge of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland is to receive only £10 a week. I do not understand why hon. Members from Northern Ireland are not present to protest that the widow of a judge in Northern Ireland is to receive only half the pension of the widow of a judge in England. The widow of a judge of the Court of Session in Scotland is to receive only £8 a week. Thus, the widow of a very respectable and learned judge in Scotland is to receive one-third of the pension of the widow of a judge in England.
The Bill is bristling with anomalies and if hon. Members opposite had read the OFFICIAL REPORT carefully and found out how the Bill would work in practice, instead of moving an Amendment which would increase those anomalies, they would have demanded the complete with-


drawal of the Bill. I certainly should not like to defend these widows' pensions at a meeting of 'old age pensioners or of widows in my constituency.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: I do not want to take up more than a few minutes of the Committee's time, and I shall not pursue what the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has said about the contents of this Bill, except to remark that it seems that he has just discovered that there are anomalies in many of our pensions systems. There are, of course, many; and, of course, there always will be—until the hon. Gentleman gets what he wants, that is, an egalitarian State; but we are not legislating for that at this moment.
I want to take up one point only in the speech of the Attorney-General, who, incidentally, made some play with the name of the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and appeared to deduce that there must be some affinity between the name of a constituency and the character of the person representing it. I only hope that, if that is so, we are not going to be presented with the awful prospect at some time or another of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's being canonised. It is enough that he is a master. I could not bear to think of him as a saint.
I want to take up the point with regard to the possibility of having special legislation to meet a tax position which might arise, and what the Attorney-General said about it. On the last occasion when we were discussing this matter my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) and I said that we could get over the tax difficulty by legislating specially for it in the Bill. The Attorney-General then, as again today, professed shocked horror at the idea that we should attempt to depart from the general principles of taxation law to meet a special case such as this.
I am bound to say that I cannot regard that shocked horror as being in the least genuine when I recollect that in the last Budget the Treasury brought all their ponderous machinery into play to make a special taxation for two particular people in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite

approve of it all right when it is taxation of somebody who, in their view, has offended against the party line, but when a proposal is brought in merely to safeguard the special position of the judges, then they do not approve of it. Therefore, I do not think there is any substance in that point.

Mr. Manuel: I agree.

Mr. Marlowe: I was referring to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. I had not wanted to make any other point, but I take it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes me to give way on some point, and I will do so.

The Attorney-General: I only wanted to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he is quite mistaken. The legislation to which he is referring—I do not know whether he voted against it—

Mr. Marlowe: I forget for the moment whether we voted against it or not.

Mr. Collick: The hon. and learned Gentleman led the opposition to it.

Mr. Marlowe: I certainly was opposed to it.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman is, perhaps, rather departing from his own principles in regard to the matter now, but, as a matter of fact, although he led the opposition to that legislation and might, therefore, have been expected to know what was in it, it was a general Bill dealing with special payments that might have been made. Two particular payments, of course, had attracted notoriety. No doubt, the Bill would not have been passed at that time if it had not been for the fact that those very large payments had been made. I concede that at once. But it was, in fact, a general Bill which applied to everybody in such cases.

Mr. Marlowe: I had anticipated that the Attorney-General was going to make that obvious point, but there is no substance in it whatever. Everybody knows perfectly well that the whole purpose of that legislation was aimed at two particular people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

The Deputy-Chairman: I think we had better not go back to the Finance Act.

Mr. Marlowe: I am not going to pursue the matter, but I hope I am entitled to answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman, since I gave way to him to enable him to make his point, by making it plain, as I said, that that legislation was aimed at two particular people. I take this view, that if the Government were able, on such an occasion as that, to introduce special tax legislation, it is just humbug to pretend now to be horrified at these proposals.

Mr. Turton: If this debate has done nothing else, it has at least converted the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to the point I put on Monday that a pension of £2 or £3 4s. 3d. a week for a county court judge's widow is very shabby treatment by this Committee. When I moved the Amendment I realised and told the Committee that to make the terms mandatory and not permissive was, perhaps, a great objection to the Amendment I was moving. However, I think it very important that these payments should not bear Death Duty. I do hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will listen to the suggestion made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), and will consider this question of the very low pensions for some county court judges' widows between the Committee stage and the later stages of the Bill. I believe that that would be the wish of Members sitting in all parts of the Committee, and, in view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Keenan: Before the Amendment is withdrawn I should like to say that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that this Amendment should not be entertained. However, it seems to me that, with the other suggestions which have been made for consideration, this one may be made, too, that we should set up some sort of an assistance board to consider the means in these instances, just as we have in dealing with the old age pensions. One of the objections to increasing the old age pensions to 26s. was that that pension would probably be payable to people whose means did not merit it—people who had means that did not justify their getting any increase. For that reason

I suggest that before the Report stage we should consider the desirability of considering this course.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do hope that we shall be able to get on now with the Bill. We on this side of the Committee have raised this point just to invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give consideration to it. My hon. Friend has asked leave to withdraw the Amendment. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give consideration to it. I know these cases want consideration, and I am not, and my hon. Friends are not, pressing for an answer today. We have been hurried in the consideration of this Bill because of the short time between the Second Reading and this Committee stage. I hope we shall be able to make progress with it, because we want this Bill to go through. Although we think it capable of improvement, we are not in any way seeking to oppose its passage; but we do want it to be—and it is our duty to see that it is—fair and equitable in all respects; and, if possible, we want to secure improvements. I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at this particular point, and in that hope I think we may get on with the next Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(CHILDREN'S PENSION: BENEFICIARIES.)

Amendments made: In page 3, line 3, leave out "section three of this Act," and insert:
subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section three of this Act, as the case may be.

In line 12, at end, add:
(5) A childrens' pension in respect of a woman's service cannot enure for the benefit of a child of any marriage of hers whose father is alive when the woman retires, or, as the case may he, dies while serving, unless the Treasury specially direct that it shall enure.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(MEANING OF "PERIOD OF CHILDHOOD AND FULL-TIME EDUCATION.")

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 35, at the end, to insert:
Any period of whole-time service in the armed forces of the Crown under the National Service Acts, 1948 to 1950, shall be ignored for the purposes of this proviso.


This is an Amendment which we introduce in order to make perfectly clear that service in the Armed Forces of the Crown should be ignored for the purposes of the proviso. That is the general practice, and it will apply here. The point was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and I think we have fully met the point.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should just like to say "Thank you" to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has fully met the point raised from this side of the Committee. It would be quite wrong, as he now recognises, that the children's pension should be terminated by reason of interruption of full-time education by National Service. I do not know whether this will affect many cases, but it is obviously an improvement in the Bill.

The Attorney-General: It is one of the cases where we thought it right to draw an analogy with the Civil Service scheme.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(CHILDREN'S PENSION: RATE AND MODE OF PAYMENT.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 5, line 18, to leave out from the beginning to the second "direct," in line 21, and to insert "the Treasury may."
It might be convenient to discuss at the same time the next Amendment, in line 22, to leave out "any such period "and to insert" the period of such remarriage." The effect of subsection (4), putting it as shortly as I can, and I think accurately, is as follows. Although under this Bill children's pensions may become payable to the children of any officer within the First Schedule, in the long list referred to by the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that pension is terminated in the event of the mother remarrying. Subject to any explanation we may hear, that seems to me to be rather odd and wrong.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Suppose she remarries another judge?

Mr.Manningham-Buller: I do not think that makes any difference to the point or to the argument. The point is that the

judge, the registrar and the sheriff-substitute pay their contributions under this Bill for both the widow's pension and the children's pension. As they pay their contributions by giving up a quarter of their pension, it seems rather odd that under the provisions of this Bill the children's pension should terminate as a general rule on remarriage of the mother. I quite see that there is a strong case for saying that, save in exceptional circumstances, the widow's pension should terminate on her remarrying, but it is another thing to say that the children's pension should terminate. That is what part of this insurance scheme is for, to provide for the children of judicial officers, and I must say that the logic of proposing, that that benefit shall be paid only if the mother does not remarry is difficult to follow. We have heard from the Attorney-General that this Bill is based solely on actuarial calculations; that it is a fifty-fifty scheme.

The Attorney-General: I am afraid I misled the Committee there, and I should like to make the matter clear in case it affects the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. The scheme is a fifty-fifty scheme so far as the widow's pension is concerned, and when the actuarial calculations were made it was only contemplated that a pension would be paid to widows; children were not involved at all. Afterwards a claim was made that children should also have these allowances, and these allowances were consequently included in the scheme without any additional contribution from the judges. The pensions for the children are therefore met entirely by the State, and the contribution of the State to the whole scheme is thus more than 50 per cent.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not think that point had been made clear in our previous discussions. It is important that the State should not appear to be mean or ungenerous. I welcome the provision made for the children; I think that is desirable; but I should like to know the estimated cost—and it must have been estimated by the actuaries—supposing it were provided that the children's pensions should not terminate on remarriage of the mother. I should have thought that that must have been calculated, and I ask the right hon.


and learned Gentleman whether he can give us any indication of the estimate.
I say straight away that I cannot believe that taking out this rather niggardly provision would mean any real increase in the financial burden falling on the State. I say that for this reason. A judicial officer leaves after his death, it may be after many years of retirement, a widow and children under the age of 16, or children undergoing full-time education. This provision comes into effect only in the event of the widow remarrying. Now, I should have thought that the chances of many widows in this particular category, with children under 16, remarrying after judges' deaths in retirement or on service were likely to be very small indeed. I therefore suggest that if this Amendment were accepted, it would mean very little indeed in the way of an increased burden upon the State. If the Attorney-General says it will mean an increase, I ask him to tell us what sort of increase it is calculated may be involved.
I expect his argument will be: "Well, this provision follows the precedent of the Superannuation Act, 1949." I think I am right in saying that objection was taken then, and the objection is taken again today. If the Committee agree that it is rather mean and niggardly that the children's pension should cease on the widow remarrying, when the step-father will not, so far as I know, be under any legal obligation to maintain his step-children, then I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider this Amendment, even if he says he cannot accept it today.

The Attorney-General: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. The effect of it would be, as the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, that the existing positive provision, that the children's pension as well as the widow's pension should cease on her remarriage unless the Treasury specially direct otherwise, would be removed, and instead the position would be that the children's pension would continue, at least at the lower rate which is set out in subsection (3), despite the remarriage, and the Treasury might direct that the rate should be increased to that set out in subsection (2). It is true that the permissive word "may" is used there, as it is used throughout the Bill, but in the absence of any specific direction in

the Clause itself it is difficult to say that there is any more discretion than there is in the other Clauses of the Bill.
The effect of adopting the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion to make the increased rate the normal procedure would be the rather curious one that remarriage would be regarded in the Bill as the same as death. It does not as a rule have that practical result in regard to the children of the woman who remarries. The effect of giving an increased rate is that the procedure would be exactly what happened if the widowed mother had died. In normal cases where the widowed mother remarries, she remarries somebody who is prepared to support both her and the children. I suppose that in most of those cases the problem is not very likely to arise at all, but in dealing with the matter we thought that it was justifiable to assume that the normal situation would arise, and that the remarriage would make it easier to support the children than it had been before.
We have followed the precedent of the 1949 Act, which was accepted by the House, and the precedent which exists in all superannuation schemes in which the State is concerned, if not also in superannuation schemes which exist in private industry. I am afraid if we were to accept this Amendment—and I cannot tell the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) how much it would involve—we should be involved in what are called repercussions—claims for the same kind of concession in all other superannuation schemes in which the State is interested.
When the widow of a judge or any judicial officer remarries, the husband may or may not be able to support the children to the extent secured previously by the pension payable under the Bill. These pensions are not very large, and if he is, in fact, able to support the children to the same extent, there is no reason why the children's pensions should continue to be payable at the expense of the State, and in relief of the gentleman who has undertaken the moral responsibility for them.
If, on the other hand, the financial position is that the new husband has not the means to support the children and the woman he is marrying in the same state,


then the Treasury may and will use their discretion to continue the children's pension. So long as they remain in the charge of the widow herself, there is no reason why the pension should not, if the husband's position necessitates it, be continued at the appropriate rate, and the position of the children on the whole will remain much the same because they will obtain their pension.
If it happens that on remarriage, the children are removed to the care of somebody else and cease to live with the stepfather, or for any other reason the support becomes more difficult, then there is in the Bill the further discretion for the Treasury to put up the children's pensions to the higher rate, and that the Treasury will do. It seems to us that that, on the whole, is a fair and reasonable arrangement. The Bill will make appropriate provision to meet the different circumstances of these cases.
I know that hon. Members opposite do not like the argument about repercussions, and I do not like it myself, but when one is on this side of the Committee one has to face the repercussions and consider what the implications are in doing anything in any particular case. We are faced with this repercussion argument in this case, and if we accepted the Amendment we could not resist the applications which would be made for the same concession in every superannuation scheme in which the State is concerned. For these reasons, I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman with withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. John Hay: I feel that the Attorney-General, in drawing attention to the possible repercussions of this matter, is going a little wide of what he intended. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) explained to the Committee, all that we intend to do is to ensure that if the wife of a deceased judge or judicial officer marries again, the children's pension which has been paid in respect of the deceased judge, shall not automatically cease being paid. As I read the Clause, that is what would happen. When I first read and compared this Amendment and the Clause, I did not think they were very far apart. There was a slight difference of wording, and, if anything, I thought the form of the Amendment was better.
I do not think the repercussion argument has very much validity. After all, what we are trying to do here is to ensure that the children of a judge or a judicial officer shall receive the sort of pension which the judges and these officers have agreed they want, and to which they are making a substantial contribution. It would be unfair to prevent them from carrying out roughly what they want, and to which they are contributing because it might happen that some other classes of people who are in receipt of pensions would say to the Government. "There, you have given the judges and judicial officers this concession, and we must demand it, too."
It has been said before, both on Second Reading and in other debates on this Bill, that the judges ought to be in a special position. I agree with a great deal of what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) when he was speaking on art earlier Amendment. I think the judges and judicial officers ought to be in a special position. I hope that the repercussion argument will not weigh too heavily with the Committee and that consideration will be given to this Amendment, if not by giving a concession now, then certainly by the time we come to the Report stage.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave us a full answer to this particular Amendment, but I must say that he has not entirely satisfied me. The Bill would be better if he accepted our suggestion, and I doubt very much, having regard to the special circumstances, whether he would get as many repercussions as he feared. The time is getting on, and in the hope that he will reconsider this matter, we will not pursue it further tonight. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: In page 5, line 23, at end, add:
(5) Where the deceased was a woman, subsection (2) of this section shall apply as it applies where the deceased was a man leaving no widow and subsections (3) and (4) of this section shall not apply—[The Attorney-General.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Sir P. Spens: I should like some information on subsection (1). In the matter of the children's pensions, paragraph (a) says:
The rate thereof may vary according to the number of persons for whose benefit it can for the time being enure.
That includes the case where there is possibly a widow and children. I do not know what the practice is, but is the custom that the mother is consulted as to what happens to her children's pensions?

The Attorney-General: Yes. Assuming that the children were living with different relatives, provision is made so that the pension is divided. I have no doubt that consultations with the mother will be undertaken in order properly to pay the portions of the pension.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS COST OF WIDOW'S AND CHILDREN'S PENSION.)

Amendment made: In page 5, line 41, leave out "or in the case of a woman," and add:
(4) Where the personal pension is or would he payable to a woman—

(a) the preceding subsections shall not apply, but
(b) a contribution towards the cost of the liabilities assumed under this Act for the benefit of the woman's children shall be made, taking the form of a reduction in the lump sum which may he granted under this Act in respect of that woman's service; and
(c) the amount of that contribution shall be ascertained from tables prepared for the purposes of this subsection by the Government Actuary:

Provided that if the woman has at any time during her relevant service so elected, no contribution shall be made and no children's pension shall he payable for the benefit of her children.
An election authorised to he made under this subsection shall be in writing, shall he made to the Treasury, and shall he made in the life-time of the person who makes it.—[The Attorney-General.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to ask one or two questions with regard to the effect of the Clause, which appears

to be somewhat curiously worded. While the first subsection says
A contribution … for the benefit of a man's wife and children shall he made,
we have now had it clearly from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, in fact, no contribution is to be made for the children.

The Attorney-General: The Attorney-General indicated dissent.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that, in the discussion on the last Amendment.

The Attorney-General: I did not put it in quite that wording. The contribution is made to the joint pension of the widow and children. Because no increase was made in the judge's contribution, it is no longer a 50–00 contribution. That is the point I made. The contribution to the children was left as it was.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I followed that, but what is not very clear on reading this Clause is on whom the liability to make the contribution will fall. If a man has a wife at the time of his retiring at a great age, and his wife is of considerable age, obviously he will still have to make the contribution; but under this Clause we get the position that apparently the contribution is to be made if he once had a wife, even though he has ceased to be married by the time of his retirement. Will a contribution be made—the words here are mandatory—where he once had a wife and, at the time of his retiring, is aged and without children? It would not appear that there is any widows' pension likely to inure, and indeed no possibility of a children's pension. I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the wording of the Clause before the Report stage, and to make it clear in what event a man will be called upon to make his contribution out of his lump sum. That is not very clear from the wording of the Clause.
I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider one further point. Will he tell me to what the words "before that time" refer, in line 37. As I read them, looking back to see what "that" refers to, it refers to "the end of his relevant service," in line 33. I am sure that the words are not intended to mean that. I am sure that they are intended to refer to the time when he "last had a wife," although the last "time" referred to is the end of his relevant service.


I therefore suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that a little redrafting here would appear to be necessary between now and the Report stage.
I have made two points. They are rather important, the first point in particular, which is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should make it clear in the Clause in what circumstances a man will have to pay the contribution. I do not think it is very clear now. Will he, for instance, have to pay a contribution where he has children of the age of 15 at the time of his retirement? I should like to know the answer to that question. If he has children of the age of 15 at the time of his retirement, I wonder what the actuarial result will be. It is very necessary that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should, if possible, explain those points to the Committee, and should reconsider the wording of the Clause.

The Attorney-General: My head almost reels when it is a question of discussing figures, because I am quite incapable of understanding even the most elementary ones. The principle that some sum should be payable in the circumstances which the hon. and learned Gentleman has envisaged is quite right. The judge has at all times been, as the insurance companies put it, covered during the period of his service in case he should die or in case he should retire. The fact may be that, fortunately, he does not die and that he is able to continue in service to a very old age. One of the best judges I ever knew was 94. He was very good at the beginning and at the end he was very good. The fact that a judge lives to an old age will not relieve him of the obligation to pay some contribution in respect of the cover which, all through those years, has been available for his wife and the children if he had died.
The position, following that general principle, with which I think the hon. and learned Gentleman would not disagree, is that a man whose wife dies before the end of his service pays a reduced contribution, which is calculated by multiplying the maximum contribution by the number of completed years of his service, up to the date when his wife dies, and dividing the sum thus obtained by the total number of years of his service until he retires. The

relevant service is defined in one of the later Clauses of the Bill. I will give the hon. and learned Gentleman an example, for which I will not vouch and which I do not understand myself. This is how it works out in practice.
In the case of a judge who is married on appointment, whose wife dies after 10 years of his service, and to whom on his retirement after 20 years' total service a pension of £1,000 a year is granted, the contribution is £1,000 multiplied by 10—the period of service at which his wife died—divided by 25, the period of his total service. That results in £400, as I am inclined to think now on reflection, it probably does. That is one case, I think a fairly clear case. There is a lump sum of £2,000. It is the pension which is multiplied and divided.
The other case is of an officer who was a bachelor on appointment and after 20 years' service, marries, but unhappily ceases to have his wife after 24 years' service, because she dies. There, the appropriate contribution, if he retires, say, after 25 years on a pension of £1,000, would be £1,000 multiplied by 24 and divided by 25, in other words, £960. On that sum, the contribution is much larger, although the officer was married for only four years. The proportion is 24–45ths and not 4–45ths. That may seem to be a hardship on the officer, but here again that is the manner in which the matter has been dealt with in other schemes.
It is no more a hardship than the example in the earlier case, where the man was already married on appointment, since while the marriage continued the wife is, of course, contingently eligible to a pension which would have been assessed not by reference to the four years during which she had been married but to the whole period of the judge's service. Consequently, it would have been a very much larger pension. That is how the thing works out in practice. She would get a very much larger pension. I hope that that answer meets the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I have done my best to follow the mathematical calculations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and he seemed to me to reach the right mathematical conclusion, but I am not at all sure that I fully appreciate


what the consequences will be in individual cases. I shall look at the matter in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and perhaps we shall have an opportunity of considering it again on the Report stage when we may table an Amendment just with a view to discussing the matter again.
Before we pass on I want to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the drafting question with regard to subsection (1). Who is liable to make the contribution is not as clear as it might be. I take it that the liability arises once the officer is married and that the liability is not varied in any case by the age of the children or whether he has children or not.

The Attorney-General: The Attorney-General indicated assent.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should also like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the wording in line 37, because the words "before that time" appear to refer back to the relevant service and not to the date when the officer last had a wife.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(PERSONS SERVING AGAIN AFTER RETIREMENT.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, to leave out from "then," to "by," in line 9, and to insert:
if that person on resumption of his service or on marrying while serving, fails within three months of demand being made upon him in that behalf to refund.
This is a drafting Amendment which deals with two points, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to accept it. The Committee will see that under the Clause anyone who is recalled to service out of retirement is under an obligation to repay half the lump sum and if he fails to repay it:
… no pension shall be granted to any widow or child of his.
While I am not in the least challenging the principle behind the Clause, occasions arise when judicial officers are recalled temporarily from retirement at the request of the authorities, and we ought to have a safeguard against their inadvertently failing to comply with these provisions and thus depriving their widows and

children of a pension. If a man returned to work, forgot all about the Clause and did not repay the part of the lump sum which he should, no pension would be granted to his widow or child. The only effect of the Amendment is to say that the widow and children shall not be deprived of the pension unless within three months of the demand being made upon such an officer he fails to make repayment.
The Amendment would work this way. If a county court judge comes back from retirement and sits as a county court judge for a month because of sudden illness somewhere, he will not have to look throught the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act to see what the consequences of his coming back will be to him, his widow and his children, but can come back with an easy mind knowing that his widow and children will not lose anything until he has been asked to repay this sum and has failed to do so. It seems a reasonable stipulation in order to avoid the possibility of a widow and children being inadvertently deprived of a pension, and I do not think that it will cast any additional financial burden on the Exchequer or in any way affect the actuarial calculations.

8.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment, but I agree with what the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind. The acceptance of the Amendment would not put any additional financial burden on the State, but it would add to the administrative difficulties, and I hope to satisfy him that it is really unnecessary. The Amendment deals with a Clause which relates not only to the judge coming back into service, which would normally be known to the State, but also to the event of his remarriage while so serving. If we were to accept the Amendment it would be necessary to do two further things, of which one—I am dealing only with this one at the moment—would be to put a provision in the Bill making it compulsory for the judge to notify some appropriate authority within a specified time of any re-marriage.
The Superannuation Act, 1949, contains exactly such a provision. It places a statutory duty on the civil servant to give the Treasury such information as is necessary for the operation of the Act whether


he is asked to give it or not. In regard to re-marriage, that would not be within the knowledge of the authority in the ordinary course, or it might not be. We considered that it would not be. This is an instance where we draw a clear distinction between the civil servant and the judge. We are not prepared to put a further duty of that kind on the persons dealt with in the Bill.
The effect of the Amendment generally would be to put the onus of demanding the refund on someone whom the Amendment does not specify and to give the judge or judicial officer three months' grace in which to make the repayment. As the Bill is drafted—we attach importance to this and think it right in principle—the administrative machinery which will be used for giving effect to the scheme and to the Clause is not specified. In general it is not desirable to set out in a Bill the exact administrative machinery by which it is to be worked. However, I give the Committee and hon. and learned Gentlemen the assurance that adequate machinery will be set up to ensure that judge's position under the Clause will be made known to him and he will be given an adequate and proper opportunity of making the contribution. The Clause will not be interpreted so strictly or rigidly as to deprive the judge of his rights simply because he has forgotten to give the necessary notification. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be satisfied with that assurance.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not entirely satisfied because, while the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in part answered the argument which I put forward, he has not entirely done so. I do not think that there is sufficient safeguard here against inadvertent omission to comply with the Clause. I am not challenging that on resumption of service or within three months of marriage one-half of the lump sum should be repaid, but no discretion is given in the Clause. In the ease of a person who did not refund on resumption—I suppose that means the very day he resumes service from his retirement—or did not refund within three months of marriage because he had forgotten all about Clause 9, I should have thought that if he were able to satisfy the Treasury that it was pure inadvertence there should be power in the Bill to enable the Treasury to avoid the consequences specified, that:

… no pension he granted to any widow or child…
I should like to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman provide for that discretion if he can do nothing else.
It seems to me right to make quite certain that an officer shall not by inadvertence be deprived of the pension for his widow and children for which he has been sacrificing a quarter of his pension. I do not want to take up time in pursuing this matter; I think I have made the point clearly. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider between now and the Report stage the inclusion of something to avoid that automatic consequence which, as the Bill now stands, is bound to result from non-compliance with the Clause, I shall be satisfied.

The Attorney-General: I do not want to appear obstinate—I am an excessively pliable person. I shall read in the OFFICIAL REPORT what the hon. and learned Member has said and will consider it on Report stage. I do not make any promise, but I shall certainly give it a fair consideration.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I think that the Committee are with me on this point, and I am sure it would improve the Bill if a form of words is put in to give that flexibility which the Committee desires to see. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 14, at the end, to add:
(2) Where the person resuming service after retirement is a woman paragraph (a) of the foregoing subsection and the reference to a refund in paragraph (b) shall be omitted.
This is a drafting Amendment. Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(PERSONS TRANSFERRING TO APPROVED EMPLOYMENT.)

Amendment made: In page 7, line 19, at end, add:,
(10) If a person to whom this section applies is a woman subsection (5) shall not apply.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11.—(PERSONS ALREADY SERVING.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 7, line 20, to leave out from "serving," to the first "in" in line 21.
I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to consider at the same time the further Amendments in the names of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and myself: In line 22, after second "Act," insert:
or after beginning so to serve, whichever is the later date.
In line 32, after "Act," insert:
in the case of persons already serving, and within three months after the date of appointment in the case of persons hereafter appointed.
These Amendments are all designed to give to persons who in future are appointed to any of the offices specified in the First Schedule the same right of election as the present holders of those offices may have. If the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) were now to be elevated to the county court bench, he would have that right of election, but if that were to happen after the Bill becomes an Act, he would then be saddled with the consequences of this Measure, The same would apply to any other legal Members of the House; appointed in the future, they would be bound by the provisions of the Bill, no doubt with the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), making his voice heard at every possible opportunity in objections to the emoluments relating to the offices. I move the Amendment, not, I fear, with any hope of its being accepted, but to establish our position on the matter, because we think it is right that these officers, whoever they may be, appointed in future, should have the same right of election as the present holders of these offices now have.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, in dealing with previous Amendments, that the Bill has met with approval from a great number of judicial officers. Of course, I accept that. We consider that the Bill has good in it—I have never said anything to the contrary—but we wish to improve it where we can. One way in which it can be improved is by giving this right of election. We are not sure that we can leave the Bill as it is now with the right of

election limited only to the present holders of these offices.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Would not that upset the whole actuarial basis of the scheme?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. and learned Member really must be more careful not to deprive his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General of the only argument which he has for resisting the Amendment. That, if I may say so, is a most unfriendly action, and I am very surprised that the hon. and learned Member should have done it. I know that the actuarial argument will be put forward, but that argument is never a convincing argument for doing something which appears to be wrong. On this occasion it is the shield of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He has been lurking behind it on every occasion when he could use it, and I am sure he will do so again now.

The Attorney-General: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member, who has put his point very shortly and very clearly, and has recognised from the beginning that there is an overwhelming answer to the Amendment which makes it utterly impossible for the Government to accept it. If in a pension scheme of this kind we gave the beneficiaries the option of coming in or staying out, making contributions or not making them, we could not possibly make in advance any actuarial calculations as to the cost of the scheme as a whole to the State or to the beneficiaries, or as to the amount which the beneficiaries ought to contribute.
What we would have to do in such a case would be what we have had to do in the case of women—to have an ad hoc contribution based on the circumstances, not of each potential pensioner, but of each potential beneficiary who wanted to come into the scheme. In other words, we would have to devise a kind of system of State life insurance, with widows' insurance and children's pensions ad hoc in the case of each individual pensioner. That, of course, would result in the contributions which would have to be made by the individuals who opted into the scheme being very much higher than they would be under a scheme which is spread over a large number of people and which consequently


evens out the contributions. For those reasons, I cannot accept the Amendment.
To remove any doubt about the matter, I should like just to add one thing—and I appreciate that the hon. and learned Member now has little doubt. While at one time there was a desire on the part, not of the judges in England, but of some of the judges in Scotland—those in the Court of Session—that this sort of provision should be made in the Bill, while no doubt they would still like to see this sort of provision made in the. Bill they do not now desire, as I think I indicated at one time that they did, to stay out of the Bill if it is impossible to make the concession. It is impossible to make the concession. I am quite sure that their own actuaries would advise them of this and that the position of the individual judges, for whom pension provision is so desirable nowadays, would he gravely prejudiced if the option were given. It is fortunate therefore, that they do not wish to press their point of view, and that the Bill will consequently now apply to all parts of the United Kingdom, and on the same terms.
I hope that the hon. and learned Member will realise the difficulties and the quite impossible situation in which we would be placed if the Amendment were to be carried, and that he will accordingly withdraw it.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I need hardly say that I have no hope of softening the stony heart of the Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General: I have the softest heart in the Committee.

Mr. Grimond: But we. should not leave this matter simply because we are blinded by the science of actuarial calculations which are waved at us as a final answer to the proposal which is now put forward. Nor because, by accepting the principle in the Amendment, we may cause what the Attorney-General has called "repercussions."
Earlier in our discussions the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) drew attention to the difficulties we might create if we increased the pension of the Lord Chancellor, but I do not believe that even the hon. Member is in favour of actually reducing the pension of

any judicial officer. Here I may say that I have no axe to grind in this matter, as there is no possibility of my becoming a judicial officer, although I am a member of the Bar. But there is one type of judicial officer, the sheriff-substitute, for whom the hon. Member may have a soft spot—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Emrys Hughes indicated dissent.

Mr. Grimond: I had hopes that the hon. Member's record would allow him to feel for them. That officer has a very large jurisdiction, but a very poor financial reward. Would it be too difficult to increase the financial reward or the award for their widows or children? I am not altogether convinced by the argument about the wage freeze, because judges and judicial officers have had little or no increase over the last 50 years. But in any event, now in certain cases certain people promoted to the Bench would actually find they were worse off than if this Measure had not been passed. Surely, no one in this House would wish to make those people worse off than they would have been before this Measure. and, therefore, whatever the actuarial difficulties or consequential difficulties, I feel the Committee should at least look at the matter again to see whether we cannot help these people, to this extent at any rate, that they should not be worse off than they were before.

Mr. Marlowe: Of course there is considerable force in the actuarial argument. One appreciates that it is not very easy to counter it. But, on the other hand, we are dealing here with an entirely new field of pension, which has never been attempted before. I suggest that this might be tried for a limited time. I he actuaries who have advised the draftsmen of this Bill have simply been drawing on their experience of the ordinary kind of pension scheme, but this is entirely outside the ordinary pensions field. I do not think anyone can say whether the contribution basis, with the Exchequer subsidy, will be enough to pay the pensions.
I put forward the suggestion that it would not be unreasonable at a later stage to consider incorporating something of the kind suggested in the Amendment for a limited period so that this new field of pensions could be explored. Then we should see whether the acturial argument


is as strong as it appears at the moment. I hope that sometime later the Attorney-General might be able to consider at least making an experiment with the proposal for a limited period.

Mr. Clyde: Apart from the sterile argument of actuarial calculations, it appears to me that there is no answer to the approval of this Amendment. The Committee have already indicated quite clearly two contrary views. Some hon. Members have described the Bill as generous to judges and as benefiting judges—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Ought not legal hon. Members likely to be interested in this matter to make the customary statement and declare their interest?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is entirely a matter for hon. Members concerned.

Mr. Clyde: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) for indicating that that prospect lies ahead of me, and perhaps others might take the same view. If it is necessary for me to disclose any interest however infinitesimal, let me disclose it and say that I am a member of the Faculty of Magistrates and one of the people in Scotland who might conceivably be appointed to one of the judicial positions in Scotland.
Some hon. Members have described the Bill as generous to judges and as benefiting judges and others as an improvement on the existing situation. That view is not shared by many others. There are others of us in this Committee who consider that the Bill, instead of benefiting judges, will actually put them in a worse position than that in which they are at present.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Should this speech not have been made on a previous Amendment? I had already put the case for the judges in Scotland before the hon. and learned Member arrived.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member had his turn a short time ago. It is now the turn of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Clyde).

Mr. Clyde: I hope that when I have had an opportunity to develop my argument a little further even the hon.

Member for South Ayrshire will appreciate the relevance of my remarks to this Amendment.
There are two quite definite views. Some hold that the Bill will benefit the judges while others hold that instead of benefiting the judges it will make them worse off. That being so, there seems to me to be an overwhelming case for giving this option. Those who think that the Bill will be generous to judges should have no conceivable reason for objecting to an Amendment which, by leaving the judges the option of taking something which in the view of those hon. Members would be less valuable to them, would be making no real concession and would be adding no further liabilities to those which the Treasury is being called upon to undertake. Those who consider that the Bill will prejudice some judges in the future and put them in a position worse than that in which they are today will have their view justified by the Amendment, which will enable judges to take their pensions on the present basis.
To give an illustration, there are 14 judges in the Court of Session. On age and length of service they are in no way unique and may be regarded as a normal illustration of judges serving in the Court of Session. Of those judges, seven will be in a better position as a result of the proposals in this Bill, and seven will be in a worse position. If that is so, is there not an overwhelming case for leaving that option so that those seven who do not opt for the proposals in this Bill would still be left at least no worse off by being permitted to take the existing pensions to which they are entitled?
It is the object of everyone in this Committee to maintain the standard and traditions of the judiciary in Scotland and in England and Northern Ireland, and anything in this Bill or otherwise that would derogate from that standard in any way should not be approved. I say without hesitation, having regard to the meagre salaries at present payable, and to the meagre pensions which are, therefore, at present payable to the Court of Session judges, that if we cut that pension down we shall move towards a situation in which we shall discourage the most suitable persons from undertaking that office in future, and we shall encourage the filling of that position by second and third rate men.
Such a situation would be a disaster, and in my view the Amendment, which will provide the means of at least preserving the present position, such as it is, is better than one which would put 50 per cent. of the judges in a worse position. The salaries of the judges of the Court of Session are £3,600 per year, and the pensions depend on the amount of the salary. Those salaries were fixed in 1887, at a time when the first-class civil servant received a salary of £1,000 to £2,000 per year. Those first-class civil servants are today receiving about £4,000 to £5,000 per year. The judges are still receiving only £3,600. I agree that salaries are not mentioned in this Bill but the pensions receivable are based on the salaries paid.
Anything that would derogate from that situation and would put these judges in a worse position, as undoubtedly some of them will be put by this Bill, is not a proposal which should find favour in this Committee. That is why I say that the proper method of dealing with the situation is to leave an option to the judges in future just as there is an option to present judges, so that those to whom it is an advantage can take the benefit and those to whom it would not be an advantage will at least be no worse off and can take the pension on the present scale.

Mr. Pannell: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether he knows of any other class of the community who under a superannuation scheme can opt to come in or to stay out for all time?

Mr. Clyde: I have yet to learn of any other class or group of men or type of professional men who receive a remuneration and a pension in the year 1950 which is no greater than the pension or the remuneration paid in 1887.

Mr. Woodburn: I wish to call attention to a few difficulties which arise from the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Clyde). He cannot be aware that his party are creating great disturbances about salaries in public service being increased in any way whatever. Indeed, only today a demand was made that the salaries of people appointed to public boards should be listed, and every day there are questions about

salaries paid to people in the public service. It is obvious that his party object to any great salaries being paid for public service. The honour attached to public service is evidently supposed to remunerate the people who take such positions as that of Chairman of the National Coal Board. Apparently, they are not expected to depend on their salary—

The Deputy-Chairman: This is rather wide of the subject under discussion. Really, we are dealing with pensions.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. and learned Gentleman raised the question of judges in Scotland. It ought to be made clear that the demand for this Bill did not come from the Government but from the desire of the judges that something should be done for their widows and children.

Mr. Clyde: Not the desire of the judges of Scotland.

Mr. Woodburn: The judges generally throughout the country wanted something done for their widows and children. It is always the case that people who do not benefit pay contributions and lose them. Everybody is worse off under the National Insurance Scheme by paying contributions—to the extent of those contributions—if they never require a doctor, spectacles, dentures or anything of that kind. But there is no one who is not glad that he can pay his contributions and not need the benefits. In the same way, the judges should be glad to pay these contributions.
It is wrong to say that judges do not benefit, because the Treasury will make a contribution in addition to the contribution which the judges pay. This will cost the State a considerable amount of money which will go to the benefit of the judges, their widows, or their children. It is true that the judges will make a sacrifice so that their widows and children may benefit; but it is a normal sacrifice which every man makes if he can be assured of the security of his widow and children. Therefore, to suggest that the judges in Scotland will be made poorer by this Bill does not state the facts, because that is not true.
The judges in Scotland do not object to this pensions scheme. They object to their conditions compared with those of


judges south of the Border. The reason they have put forward suggestions about this scheme is very largely in an attempt to call attention to these anomalies. I am sure that every Scotsman in the Committee agrees that when that matter comes to be considered, the anomalies as between the Scottish judges and their colleagues south of the Border ought to be considered. There appear to be poorer conditions in Scotland than in England. I suggest, however, that this would not be a propitious time to consider increasing salaries of this order.
8.45 p.m.
The hon. and learned Gentleman compared the judges with the heads of the Civil Service, but we know that, while the responsibilities of the heads of our Civil Service have grown tremendously with the years, the responsibilities of judges have not necessarily altered. I think that all will agree that the status of a judge in the community must be maintained; nobody will disagree with that. It is quite true that the general public would like to see the status of judges maintained, and salaries today are very largely a matter of status. When the salaries come to be reconsidered, I am quite sure that the Government will give consideration to the respective salaries paid in Northern Ireland, Scotland and England, but on this side of the Committee—and I am quite sure on the other side as well—the present time is not regarded as appropriate for considering increasing these salaries.
This pensions scheme is introduced on the initiative of the judges themselves, and the Committee would do a great disservice to them if it did not allow the scheme to go through, so that the judges can make their own provision, in their own way and at their own request, for their widows and children. I think we have the assurance of the Scottish judges that they do want this pensions scheme, although they have used this protest as a method of raising another question altogether.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I hope there will be no misunderstanding about the salaries and pensions of Scottish judges as a result of the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Clyde), and I can quite understand that

some English hon. Members may have had their hearts wrung by the pitiful stories which have been told to us. I should like to state the facts before hon. Members get out their handkerchiefs to do a weep for the Scottish judges. In giving the facts, I am indebted in some way to the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), who elicited this information from the Attorney-General.
A judge of the Court of Session gets £70 per week, or £10 per day, and under this scheme there is to be a lump sum of £4,050 and another death gratuity of £4,050.

Hon. Members: No.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): The judge does not get both, the lump sum and the death gratuity. He gets one or the other.

Mr. Hughes: I apologise, and I am quite sure that, if I make any mistake about the facts, there are sufficient legal Members here to correct me.
What about the widow's pension? It is £675 a year, or £13 per week, so that I see no cause for alarm at all and no, reason to believe that legal gentlemen will decide not to take up office at the Court of Session but, instead, to take a profession in the mining industry. But let the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, North, realise that he is much better off than the judges represented by the hon. and learned Gentleman sitting next to him, who represents Belfast, South (Mr. Gage). A judge of the Court of Session receives £600 more than a judge of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, and right through we find that Scottish judges are much better off than their learned, colleagues in—

Mr. Gage: Why, then, did not the hon. Gentleman support me when I argued that Northern Ireland should be raised at least to the standard of Scotland?

Mr. Hughes: After having acquired some recent knowledge of the Northern Ireland Attorney-General, I very much doubt whether they should raise judges from that department at all. I have-not a very high opinion of the judiciary in Northern Ireland.
I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke for the judges of the Court of Session should remember that, after all, there is no great case for pleading poverty on the part of Scottish judges.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We have a proverb in Scotland which I might draw to the attention of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), and which runs:
It is an ill bird that fouls its own nest.
That may not, of course, appeal to a Welshman, but I think that, sitting for a Scottish constituency, the hon. Member might have considered it. As to his view on the Northern Ireland judges, I shall leave it to the right hon. and learnedLord Advocate to consider whether it does not come within the category of mummering the judges. I think it does. I would only ask the Committee to consider the honeyed words used by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and the sharp contrast made by the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire immediately following. The right hon. Member for East Stirling said that we all wanted to see the position of the judges improved and that no doubt on a future occasion, their position would be improved, but that this was not an appropriate time or occasion on which to do it. Let him look below the Gangway at his hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire and see whether, indeed, the judges have not every reason to fear that this is a postponement of any improvement of their situation to an indefinite date. I will not argue again the case for the remuneration of the Senators of the College of Justice in Scotland.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman go to his electorate at Kelvingrove at the last election and get a mandate from the working classes there for what he is now bringing forward?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: As far as I know, this Measure did not form part of the election manifesto of either side. All I would say is that the Government are bringing it forward, as they say, because they consider that the position of the judges should be somewhat improved, but that we think the provision is inadequate.
The right hon. Member for East Stirling said that a contribution was being made by the Government here. We know from the Memorandum on the front of the Bill that the contribution amounts to some £10,000 per annum for the whole United Kingdom, of which, I suppose, the Scottish eleven-eightieths will work out about £1,000. The betterment of all the judges in Scotland by £1,000 per annum is not, I suggest, the sort of thing which a former Secretary of State for Scotland and holder of the Great Seal of Scotland should bring before the House as being desirable at the present time.

Mr. Woodburn: I was not introducing, or suggesting that the Government were introducing, this Bill in order to give them extra money. I was merely pointing out that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Clyde) had said that they were suffering under this Bill. I suggest that, collectively, they are not suffering if on balance something goes to them. Therefore I was merely pointing out that the hon. and learned Member was over-stressing his argument about the injury which this Bill was doing to the Scottish judges, because it was at the request of the judges generally that the Bill was introduced, and it was for their peace of mind that their widows and children were going to be provided for by themselves.

The Chairman: Those questions really do not arise on this Amendment. They might very properly have been raised on earlier stages of the Bill. The only question before the Committee is that of election in certain circumstances.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If I may use on this occasion the more usual appellation, Major Milner, I would say that I fully agree and defer absolutely to your judgment. I only moved into the other field in so far as I was challenged by the right hon. Member for East Stirling and by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. I admit this is a narrow point and I certainly do not desire to traverse again the ground which has been traversed before—the ground as to the adequate remuneration of the judiciary on which we divided the Committee. Having taken the verdict of the Committee on that matter, we naturally do not propose to raise it again. I would only say that on this particular question of the inclusion of the judges in the scheme—and I think the right hon.


and learned Lord Advocate will bear me out—only quite recently the judges showed not merely no particular appreciation of it but actually reluctance to be included in the scheme.
As I understand, the Attorney-General indicated they have withdrawn that and now they say they are willing to take the verdict of the Committee on the Amendments, and that if they are defeated they do not thereafter wish to be separated from the rest of the judiciary of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, they pressed us very strongly that we should seriously consider whether the provision here laid down is adequate. The Attorney-General said the scheme allowed certain benefits for certain contributions, and he could see no way under the provision of this scheme whereby the suggested alleviation of the position might arise. We think that a great pity, but we have now made progress with the Measure. We are bound by decisions which have been taken previously and we are working within the limits of the scheme brought forward by the Government.
There is only one issue now before the Committee. It is whether the judges can be allowed to elect to remain in the scheme or whether they can be allowed to opt out of it, not merely at present but in future. The Attorney-General has said that that is impossible. The judges in Scotland have said that if that is refused they do not desire to be excluded from the scheme. In that case I and my hon. and hon. and learned Friends do not desire to move the subsequent Amendments which were to the effect that judges should be omitted, because that naturally was at the desire of the judges at the time. Since they have withdrawn their objections, naturally we do not wish to go contrary to their views.
We still say, however, that the scheme as drawn deals inadequately with the position. That position has been brought out more than once. The scheme does not take any account of the enormous changes in the value of money and the relative values of salaries since they were fixed in 1887.

The Chairman: The right hon. and gallant Member is dealing with matters which I indicated were not in order. I hope he will not pursue that argument.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not wish to do so. I only wish to say that the retirement of a judge on pension has been said by the right hon. Member for East Stirling, a former Secretary of State for Scotland, to be a matter similar to what it has been in previous years because the tasks laid on the judiciary are no greater than they used to be, whereas the tasks of civil servants have greatly increased. If he had heard comments from the bench, as he must often have heard, on the complexities of the laws they have to administer, and particularly if he looked at the legislation dealing with leaseholds, he would think differently.

The Attorney-General: That is exactly what keeps their minds young—the mental exercise.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If exercise keeps their minds young then they have only begun their task. I am sure that only appeals to the Attorney-General in his private capacity and I am sure it does not apply to anyone else. The tasks laid upon judges, as upon servants of the State, are increasing and will increase, and Parliament should pay attention to that soon. Until that time comes we accept this Measure, and we say that this must only put off—and not for a very long time—the improved remuneration which will certainly become necessary to maintain the high standard of our Bench.

9.0 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: The purpose of this Amendment is to make an exception to the ordinary rule and enable future appointees to the bench and other judicial offices to have the right either to opt into the scheme or to opt out of it. When the Attorney-General indicated that actuarially such a proposal could not be contemplated, it was criticised by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh. North (Mr. Clyde), as a sterile actuarial argument. I regarded that as rather a curious criticism, because hon. Members opposite are always inclined to use the financial and actuarial argument when it suits their own particular purpose.
Might I remind the hon. and learned Member of another Scottish expression—not the one used by the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), but an expression which is even more widespread in Scotland:
Facts are chiels that winna ding And daurna he disputed.


I have no intention of incorporating a Scottish application Clause to my remarks here tonight. That is the answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's criticism, because the actuarial facts and financial calculations give an unanswerable reply to the contention made by those supporting this Amendment when they referred to it as a sterile actuarial argument. No scheme of insurance could ever be contemplated, be it public or private, if the people organising the scheme could not budget for the number of people likely to come into it in circumstances such as these.
The hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) suggested that we should have an experimental period. If the actuarial facts completely offset the argument in favour of such a proposal in general, I cannot see any justification for suggesting an experimental period in connection with this scheme. Why this particular scheme in distinction to any other scheme? If the hon. and learned Gentleman were advising any insurance company who might come to him for an opinion, would he tender such advice to them if they wanted to organise such a scheme—that, not knowing how many people were coming into the scheme, they should have a provisional period during which people could decide whether to stay in or get out? I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman would not tender such legal advice in a professional capacity, and I was rather surprised that he urged it on this occasion.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, North, suggested that we had said from this side of the Committee—I took him to mean from the Front Bench—that these were very generous provisions to the judges and judicial officers. We have not indicated anything of the sort. We said they were fair and reasonable. We have never urged that they are generous. I think that the measure of their fairness and reasonableness is this: as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has already pointed out, in so far as there is a reduction in the pension there is the compensating effect either of the lump sum or of the death gratuity. In so far as there are widows' pensions and children's pensions, there is a fifty-fifty contribution, and on that fact alone I would have assumed that there was prima facie evidence that this was a reasonable scheme

and one which was generally to the benefit of the judges and judicial officers.
It may be that in an exceptional case a person might be worse off, but that is true of every insurance and every insurance principle. Every insurance company which promotes any scheme of insurance is bound to admit that some people may be better off and some people may be worse off. There are very few insurance companies which could give the guarantee which is given in this Bill that substantially most of the people affected by it will be better off. If we want further prima facie evidence of that fact, then it is provided by the general acceptance of this scheme, by and large, by all the members of the judiciary in the country and by the judicial officers.
I do not want to fall into too much controversy, but hon. Members have raised the question of the position of the judges of the Court of Session in Scotland. In particular, an argument advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, North, was based on the assumption that the future bench could be taken as the equivalent of the present bench, and the hon. and learned Member gave certain facts and figures in relation to that. The judges of the Court of Session received an actuarial report on this scheme. I have not had the advantage of seeing it and I do not know whether and to what extent it takes into account the incidence of taxation, but I must say that I find it difficult to accept the general conclusion reached that, having regard to the benefits to which I have already referred—the lump sum with no taxation, the death gratuity with no taxation, the widows' benefits, the children's benefits and the 50 per cent. contribution of the Treasury—only seven out of the 14 judges will benefit under the scheme. I am not impeaching in any way its bona fides, but I have no reason to believe that all the factors we have taken into account have been taken into account in the report.
What was the result of the figures submitted to us by the judges? Of the seven who would be advantaged, they would be advantaged to the equivalent of £20,000. The seven who would be disadvantaged would be disadvantaged to the extent of about £11,000. Thus, over the whole, there would be an overall advantage of £9,000 even on their own figures. Why


should it be said by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, North, that, in these circumstances, the judges of the Court of Session would be in a worse position—even on their own figures? As I have said before, under any assurance scheme some may be worse off, but I submit to the Committee that, having regard to the factors I have mentioned, it is manifest that the majority of judges and judicial officers will benefit under the scheme.
I do not wish to deal at all with the question of salaries, even by the expedient used by some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen of linking it up with the question of pensions. I would say in passing, however, that the disparity between the salaries and pensions of Scottish judges and those of English judges, and the alleged failure to improve the standard of judicial salaries, have existed for a very long time and nothing was done to remove those difficulties during the period when hon. Members opposite were in power.
One of my hon. Friends put forward what I regarded as a complete and absolute answer to the merits of this Amendment. He challenged the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, North and any of his colleagues to refer to any scheme of superannuation or insurance in which a principle of this nature was admitted. Not one tittle of evidence was adduced to support the justification of this proposal, either by statement or by reference to other schemes.
In these circumstances, I ask the Committee to reject this Amendment, not because we want to inflict any injustice but because there has been no case made out to justify the proposal. The scheme is a perfectly proper one and a fair one. The reason we give an option to the existing judges is that when they entered into the position of judgeship they were offered certain terms and conditions. They knew that those conditions existed and they were unaware of the present proposals. Therefore, it would be unfair to commit them to a scheme against their will when they had entered into that employment under different conditions. So far as future appointees are concerned, they will appreciate fully the terms and conditions of their appointment, including the entrance into this pensions scheme,

and therefore no hardship can be inflicted.
There were certain points of view expressed at an earlier stage of the Bill regarding the position of the Court of Session judges. I think I am expressing the view of the whole Committee when I say that I think we all should feel it very unfortunate if any one particular branch of the judiciary had to be excluded, for one reason or another, from this pensions scheme.
I am very pleased to inform the Committee, in confirmation of what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove has said, and as my right hon. and learned Friend has foreshadowed, that the judges of the Court of Sessions, who at one time, not because they would personally be affected, because they can opt out, but because they thought they would be protecting the interests of future appointees to the Court of Session Bench, were anxious that the Court of Session judges should not be included, have now altered their view, and let it be known that, should this Clause be carried, they would have no wish to be excluded from the Bill. As far as my information goes, that means that all the members of the judiciary in all three countries, England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, now wish to be included.
I trust that, with that explanation, we can make further progress with the Bill, and I invite the Committee to reject this Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 112.—(PERSONS ALREADY RETIRED.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 8, line 8, at the end, to add:
Provided that if a person retiring on or after the tenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty, within three months after the passing of this Act so elects, this subsection shall not apply to or in relation to pension for which he became eligible on that retirement.
(2) If a person exercising an election under the proviso to the preceding subsection within the said period of three months further elects—

(a) eligibility for the said pension shall not satisfy the conditions under which a widow's or children's pension may he granted under this Act; and
(b) any lump sum payable in respect of his service shall not be reduced under section eight of this Act.



(3) Where a person exercises his election under the proviso to subsection (1) of this section, the lump sum payable under this Act in respect of his service shall be diminished by any excess of the said pension paid or payable to him in respect of any period (whether before or after the passing of this Act) before the exercise of the election over the pension which would have been so paid or payable if the provisions of this Act for the reduction of personal pensions had applied during that period.
(4) An election authorised to be made under this section shall be in writing, shall be made to the Treasury, and shall be made in the lifetime of the person who makes it.
The object of this Amendment is to enable those who will have retired between the date of the introduction of the Bill and the date of its passing to obtain the benefits of the Bill if they desire so to do. When this Bill was introduced there was a reasonable prospect, we thought and hoped, of getting the Bill some time this year, at any rate before Christmas. The delay in the Committee stage has made that very unlikely, and it would be a great misfortune if, because of the delay here, certain personal and administrative arrangements which have already been made were upset. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will agree that the Bill should have this very short retrospective operation.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: We do not object to the proposed Amendment. It covers retirement between the date of 10th November and a period after the passing of the Measure. Does it cover the case of the death occurring of one of these officers between 10th November and three months after the passing of the Bill?

The Attorney-General: Yes.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I was not quite sure whether it did from the wording.
There was one observation that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made which rather qualifies my welcome of this Amendment, and that was his suggestion that there has been delay in the Committee stage of the Bill. He will recollect, and I am sure he Will agree, that the consideration of this Bill has throughout, I think all its stages, been delayed by the consideration of the Festival of Britain (Sunday Opening) Bill. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman reckons the time occupied by this Bill, he will not find it so very long, and I could not for one moment assent to his suggestion that this

Bill has been given either too much or too little consideration.
9.15 p.m.
For the reasons I indicated on Second Reading, it is our duty to examine the operation of this Bill in detail and try to make it, whatever the right hon. and learned Gentleman may say, as good a Bill as we can. That is the duty of this Committee, and I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made the suggestion that there had been delay in this Committee, and that that was the cause for the inclusion of this Amendment. I do not recognise that as a valid argument. I think it right that this Committee and another place should have a proper opportunity of considering this Bill, but it would obviously be wrong that those who may be affected should have their rights affected by the time spent in the proper consideration of this Measure. It is for that reason that we agree to this proposed Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14.—(STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES.)

Amendment made: In page 8, line 24, leave out "eleven," and insert "eight, section eleven or section twelve."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 and 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17.—(RECOMMENDATION OF A MINISTER REQUIRED IN CERTAIN CASES.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell the Committee to which of the pensions set out in the list in HANSARD of 24th November this Clause applies. I should be interested to know which of the pensions of the officers specified in that schedule require the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor or of any other Minister.

The Attorney-General: I do not object at all to this question, which is purely a


drafting point. I do not want to take up time discussing other aspects of this Bill, but I must say that we have made better progress today, and I did feel during our earlier discussion in Committee that if judges had been listening to the speeches of hon. Members opposite, or had read their speeches in HANSARD, they might well have said, "Save us from our friends."
This Clause assimilates the machinery for the granting of lump sums of widows' or children's pensions to the machinery which already exists in certain cases. For instance, under the County Court Act, 1934, there is express provision that the Lord Chancellor may from time to time recommend to the Treasury that there shall be paid to any judge an annual sum by way of pension, and the effect of this Clause is that the Lord Chancellor makes a similar recommendation. Similar provisions are contained in the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, and we have had to follow the same procedure.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18.—(CONTRIBUTIONS NOT TO QUALIFY FOR INCOME TAX RELIEF.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Again I seek information, and I make no apology for asking for it, even though I disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the conclusions that any spectator of our proceedings on the last occasion would draw as to who were the friends and who were the enemies of the people whom this Bill is intended to benefit.
As I understand it, this Clause says that contributions to be made under this Bill shall not qualify for Income Tax relief. Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say exactly how this will operate, bearing in mind, as I understand the Bill, that the person concerned will only receive a lump sum less the contribution in cases where the contribution is payable? In those circumstances, I fail to see how the contribution, which really will never come into his hand, could possibly qualify for relief from Income Tax.

The Attorney-General: This is rather a technical Income Tax point. The object

is to ensure that officers who are affected by the Bill do not receive an undeserved Income Tax benefit. The lump sum is not subject to tax, but it might be possible for an officer who had contributed towards his widow's pension by a reduction or a refund of his lump sum to claim some Income Tax relief on the ground that the contribution had been made, in the words of the Income Tax Act of 1918:
… under any Act of Parliament liable to the payment of any sum … to secure a deferred annuity to his widow …
That would not be right, and that is why this provision is necessary.

Sir Herbert Williams: I am not too much impressed by the statement of the Attorney-General. This is taking away something that these people would get if this Clause were not in the Bill. It is designed to deprive people of something which they would get under the normal operation of the law. The Attorney-General defended it on the ground that they receive under another Clause of the Bill a lump sum payment which can be treated as a capital sum, and is therefore free of tax. Hon. Members should read Clause 18, which states:
Relief from income tax shall not be allowed to any person under section thirty-two of the Income Tax Act, 1918 (which provides relief for, amongst other things, contributions to secure deferred annuities to widows …
The persons concerned will not get this relief under this Bill, but they would be deprived of what other persons normally would get if they were making a certain kind of transaction.

The Attorney-General: The Attorney-General indicated dissent.

Sir H. Williams: The Attorney-General shakes his head, but I think I am right. If, for example, a man retires from some kind of employment and a condition of his retirement is the payment of a lump sum, that is a capital payment and it is free of tax. A large number of people in a similar position might be concerned with firms' pensions schemes and contributions under the pensions schemes. These contributions are free of tax. Therefore, I am not quite convinced that the Attorney-General is right when he says that my argument is wrong. If he is satisfied that he is right. I hope he will clear my mind.

The Attorney-General: That is more than I can undertake to do. If the hon. Member will look at HANSARD in the morning, I dare say his mind will be clarified, and he will be able to understand that what I have said is correct.
Might I take this opportunity of correcting a statement I made a minute or two ago. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), asked me whether a judge who died in the intervening period would be covered. He would not. That is the result of an Amendment we have already passed, but I will look into the position about that. I did say he would be, and I want to correct it.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: If we are making it retrospective—and quite rightly so—to the date of the presentation of the Bill in the case of retirement, we should also ensure that if death occurs in the intervening period that would be covered. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to do that.

Sir H. Williams: The Attorney-General tells me to read HANSARD tomorrow to understand what he said. He is now correcting something which he has just said. Perhaps he will advise we whether I am to read the authorised version or the revised version, and will the revised version be authorised?
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 19 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24.—(AMENDMENT OF LAW RELATING TO ANNUITIES TO SHERIFFS SUBSTITUTE.)

The Chairman: I have a manuscript Amendment in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller). I propose to call it, but I am not at all sure that it is within the scope of the Financial Resolution. I must therefore reserve the right to withdraw it from the Committee in the event of my being satisfied that it Is not within that scope.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 12, line 35, after "who," to insert: "on grounds of health or."
I am much obliged to you, Major Milner. Speaking from my recollection of the Financial Resolution I think that my Amendment comes within the terms of it, but I move the Amendment with uneasy trepidation and I subject myself to the tender mercies of the Lord Advocate, as I am dealing with a matter which affects the Scottish system. I do so because I think it is desirable that we should have an explanation from him on this matter.
The Clause, as I understand it, provides that the salaried sheriff substitute who has held an extremely onerous office can, when he becomes less able to fulfil the duties of that office, move to a slightly lower, and perhaps easier office at a lower salary, and yet obtain a pension based upon his emoluments when he was getting the higher salary in the more onerous office. He will not suffer loss of pension consequent upon taking a less onerous position. I must say it sounds to me a very desirable system in the case of those who have been extremely active.
The Clause as it stands applies only to salaried sheriffs substitute who, after attaining the age of 65 years and after completing a service of not fewer than 15 years, take a less responsible place. It does not appear that the Clause will be of very extensive application. The salaried sheriff substitute has not only to attain that age but to have completed that period of service before he, so to speak, steps down. The effect of the Amendment would be to provide that where the stepping down takes place, not on account of age but on account of health—

The Attorney-General: At a much earlier age.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It might be earlier.

The Attorney-General: It might be within a year of appointment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It is true that it might be within a year of his appointment, and then there would not be a case for dealing with it in precisely the same way. Let us take the case where a man has spent 15 years in the higher position of a salaried sheriff substitute and


then retires because of ill-health to a less onerous position, without having reached the age of 65. He will not be able to obtain the benefit of this provision. I am not suggesting that the Amendment is a perfect form of words. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just drawn attention to one obvious defect.
The intention we have is to bring to the notice of the Committee the position of the sheriff substitute who has served a long period and whose retirement from a more strenuous to a less strenuous position is not due solely to age but to infirmities developed during his career. Ignorant as I am of what happens in the courts of sheriffs substitute it seems to me that there is a case for the Amendment. I hope that the Lord Advocate will be able to say that while he may not be able to accept the Amendment in its present terms he will do what he can about it between now and the Report stage.

9.30 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I indicate in the first instance the change which we propose making by the Clause itself and then examine the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), in the light of that. It was represented to us that a sheriff-substitute who had completed 15 years' service and reached the age of 65 while engaged in busy courts such as in Glasgow or Edinburgh might not feel disposed to carry on with that work because of its onerous nature; but if he could get a transfer to a less busy court at a lower salary—because there are three grades of salary for sheriffs-substitute in Scotland—it would be a desirable thing. However, under the existing law, the Sheriff Courts Act, 1907, his pension is calculated on his salary over the last five years of his employment, and accordingly if he effected such a transfer to a less busy sheriffdom with a consequential lowering of his salary his pension would be calculated on a lower figure than if he had remained in his original sheriffdom.
We agreed to give effect to that proposal and Clause 24 seeks to do so. The basis of that was that in the normal course of events by the time a sheriff-substitute had done 15 years and had reached the age of 65—of course, he may have done

more than 15 years when he reaches the age of 65—apart from any real physical ill-health, the passage of years might make it difficult for him to stand up to the rough and tumble of the heavy court work in one of the busier courts, and it was desirable, without dispensing with his services altogether, to allow him to transfer to another sheriffdom.
But now the proposal is made in the Amendment that we should allow him at any time during the whole course of his career because of ill-health—which is not defined and no provision is made in the Amendment to determine what the nature or standard of ill health should be—to get a transfer to another less well paid sheriffdom but still have his retiral pension determined by reference not to the last five years of his employment but to the best five years of his employment. The net result of that would be that if a man was appointed, say, to Glasgow and served for five years in Glasgow as a sheriff-substitute doing very heavy work for which he receives the highest remuneration in this sphere and after that five years was transferred to a county sheriffdom where the work was very light indeed he would suffer a diminution of salary from £1,900 to £1,400; but at the end of the day when he retired under this proposal, albeit he had only done five years in Glasgow and possibly 25 years in the country, he would be entitled to his pension on his salary for the five years he served in Glasgow and not in relation to the 25 years he served in the country.
As my right hon. and learned Friend has said from time to time, we must not lose the good here in pursuit of the better. What we have to do is to meet the normal case of the person who at 65 with at least 15 years' service behind him wishes to transfer to a less busy sheriffdom with a consequential lowering of his salary. We cannot provide for every possible case, for the case of the person who breaks down here or breaks down there, because it really would make nonsense of the proposals if we take the example which I quoted concerning Glasgow. I believe that we have substantially met the case of the sheriffs substitute by including this Clause, and that this is better than putting forward Amendments to cope with other possibilities which are more likely to arise in theory than in practice.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In the light of that explanation, which, I feel sure, will be fully understood by all those familiar with the Scottish judicial system, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. McNEIL:
In Clause 24, page 12, line 45, at end, insert:
(2) Where a salaried sheriff-substitute who has attained the age of sixty-five years and has completed a period of service of not less than fifteen years is appointed to the office of sheriff and is not restricted by the terms of his appointment to that office from engaging in private practice, it shall be lawful for the Treasury on the recommendation of the Secretary of State to grant to him the like annuity as could have been granted to him under section twenty of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, if, at the date of his appointment to the office of sheriff, he had resigned his office of sheriff-substitute and the certificate referred to in the said section twenty had been granted in respect of him.
Provided always that so long as such person holds the office of sheriff the said annuity shall not be payable.

The Chairman: I gather that the Lord Advocate was, in fact, explaining this Amendment, and perhaps therefore it may be taken shortly.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Do I understand, Major Milner, that you are not calling the Amendment which is on the Order Paper in my name in page 12, line 38, after "place," to insert:
or has been appointed to the office of part-time Sheriff Principal."?

The Chairman: I am sorry I could not select the hon. Member's Amendment; it is covered.

The Lord Advocate: May I, with permission, Major Milner, for technical reasons, alter the form of the Amendment as it appears on the Order Paper, although the result will be exactly the same? I should like to delete the words:
it shall be lawful for the Treasury on the recommendation of the Secretary of State to grant to him the like annuity as could have been granted to him under
and to insert after the words:
Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907
the following words:
shall apply to him in like manner as it would have applied".

I beg to move in page 12. line 45. at the end, to insert:
(2) Where a salaried sheriff-substitute who has attained the age of sixty-five years and has completed a period of service of not less than fifteen years is appointed to the office of sheriff and is not restricted by the terms of his appointment to that office from engaging in private practice, section twenty of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, shall apply to him in like manner as it would have applied if, at the date of his appointment to the office of sheriff, he had resigned his office of sheriff-substitute and the certificate referred to in the said section twenty had been granted in respect of him.
Provided always that so long as such person holds the office of sheriff the said annuity shall not be payable.
The hon. Member for Angus, North (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) need not be unduly worried that his Amendment was not called, because the purpose of the present Amendment is really to give effect to that which appears in his name. Part-time sheriffs, who can engage in practice as distinct from the sheriffs substitute do not have any pension rights; theirs is a non-pensionable appointment. The reason for the Amendment is simply this: that when a sheriff substitute has attained the age of 65 and has served not less than 15 years, he would be entitled to a pension were he to retire on the ground of ill health; but should he be appointed to a part-time sheriffdom, he would not have the certificate of ill health, and if he took that appointment he would forfeit his previous pension rights under the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907.
The purpose of the Amendment is that if that person satisfies the conditions of age—65 years—and 15 years' service and is then appointed to a part-time sheriffdom, he puts his pension rights into cold storage and they revive on his resignation from the sheriffdom or on death.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for meeting the point which I tried in my amateurish way to insert in the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 25, 26 and 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
First Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule.—(CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS FOR REDUCTION OF PERSONAL PENSION.)

Mr. Gage: I beg to move, in page 18, line 8, to leave out "and."
I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the following Amendment in my name were considered with this Amendment—in line 9, leave out from "(c)," to the end of line 12, and insert:
(i) for the words 'one sixtieth,' substitute the words 'one eightieth,' and for the new paragraph (c) (ii), substitute (c) (ii) of four eightieths in respect of such service after the completion of the said tenth year of service until the completion of the fifteenth year of service:
Provided that no addition shall be made to the allowance in respect of any service beyond fifteen years'.
This is the last Amendment and I am conceited enough to think it is one of the best, and optimistic enough to think it is one that might be acceptable to the Attorney-General. The Amendment looks complicated, but in fact it is quite a simple one. In a sentence, it is to allow metropolitan magistrates to earn their full pension on completion of 15 years' service instead of 20 years' service as at present. The Committee will know that county court judges in this country have always been regarded, at any rate by the Bar, as very much of the same status as metropolitan magistrates. Their salary is precisely the same, their pension works out at the same, but the metropolitan magistrate cannot obtain his full pension until he has completed 20 years' service, while a county court judge has to do only 15 years' service.
It is, of course, true that the county court judge can be called back to serve after his retirement, but we know that not only is the county court judge called back but the metropolitan magistrate very often comes back. I think I am right in saying that of all judicial officers—I dislike that term very much, but it is the one used in the Bill—the metropolitan magistrates are almost the worst treated in the way of pension.
One could make quite an interesting comparison. The salary of a Metropolitan magistrate is £2,000 a year. After 15

years' service his pension under the present scheme is £1,000 a year and under the new scheme, when this Bill becomes law, it will be £750. The salary of the county court judge is £2,000 and after 15 years' service his pension will be £1,333 a year under the present scheme and, after the Bill is passed £1,000 a year. The most remarkable comparison of all is that of the sheriff-substitute whose salary is less than that of the county court judge and the Metropolitan magistrate, £1,900 a year, but after 15 years' service his pension is £1,267 a year. Although his salary is lower than that of a Metropolitan magistrate, his pension after 15 years' service is greater and under this Measure it will still be greater at £950 a year.
Probably the great strength of this Amendment is that the Metropolitan magistrates' courts, as any hon. Member who sits for a London constituency will know, are in the truest and best sense of the term people's courts. Anyone who has been in them will know that, in addition to their judicial duties, Metropolitan magistrates have the difficult and sometimes invidious duty of giving advice to people who go there. I think they are the only courts in the world which combine the giving of advice as well as the discharge of justice. In my view, they are in every way comparable with the county courts because, although the county court may have in some respects—no, I will not say more difficult questions of law to resolve, because nowadays that does not hold good—but the Metropolitan magistrate also has to be a man of great human knowledge, great human feeling and commonsense.
I remember very well that when I first went to the Bar there was an old county court judge whom some hon. and learned Members may remember, Judge Cluer, a very fierce old county court judge—they do not breed them like that nowadays—who sat in Whitechapel County Court. When I first went there, a rather tough-looking lady got up when the business was about to start and said, "I have come for some advice." The judge beamed all over his face, and said, "You know, madam, then I was a magistrate, but I am now a judge and I am sorry that I cannot advise you any more." That lady had been so impressed by Judge Cluer when he was a magistrate that she had followed him round in order to obtain


more free advice from him. It is remarkable how many humble folk throughout this Metropolis depend upon the Metropolitan magistrate for advice and assistance. In view of that, the Committee will agree that it is most important that the best people should be recruited to the Metropolitan bench; and the great attraction of the Metropolitan bench has been the pension.
If it can now be arranged that this full pension will be earned after 15 years' service, it will be to the general advantage of the Metropolitan magistracy. Without in any way disparaging the Home Office, I am happy that the Metropolitan magistrates now come under the Lord Chancellor. That may be a good omen that he will now take an interest in them. I am quite certain that if the Attorney-General really considers what I have said, he will find the Amendment acceptable.

9.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage) that this is one of the best Amendments that has been moved from the opposite side of the Committee, but I am afraid that it is not quite so good that I can accept it for inclusion in this Bill. I should like to join with the hon. Member in paying a tribute to the great ability, shrewd understanding and wide humanity with which the Metropolitan magistrates discharge their heavy and difficult duties. They do most important work in the Metropolis. But I am afraid that this is not a Bill which is intended to alter rates of pensions or periods of qualification. If it were, the hon. Member's proposal would certainly be one which would merit consideration.
This Bill has been drafted, and the financial considerations have been concluded, on the basis that the rates of pension and the periods of qualification will remain entirely unaltered. Indeed, so far as pensions to the judicial officers are concerned, there is no increase whatever in the financial liability of the State.

Mr. Gage: The Attorney-General would agree that this Amendment is perhaps the only one which does not upset the actuarial basis of this scheme? I think that is so.

The Attorney-General: I am not sure whether that would be so. We have not considered it from that point of view because this scheme is one for dealing with the re-arrangement of existing pension rights and not for altering the actual rates.
I sympathise and am in considerable agreement with what the hon. Member has said, but it is really outside the scope of the present Bill. The position in regard to the Metropolitan magistrates is that when the original Act dealing with them was passed in 1915, the term of service necessary to earn the maximum pension was 30 years. In 1929 the term was reduced to 20 years. Now, of course, they would very naturally like the term to be reduced to 15 years, and I fully sympathise with them. The hon. Member has compared their position with that of the county court judges. When the magistrates' period of qualification was reduced to 20 years, the qualifying period for the county court judges had already been fixed some years before at 15 years. No doubt the difference in the two periods was taken into account by Parliament at that time. Again, when the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace considered the matter comparatively recently, they had regard to and examined the appropriate pension for stipendiary magistrates. That, of course, was enacted only a year ago in the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949.
I am afraid that for these reasons I cannot accept the Amendment. I also add this reason, which I know is not popular. We should have a good many repercussions. Official referees, for instance, are now on a 25-year qualifying basis. Naturally, they would want to come down as well. I hope that in the circumstances the hon. Member will understand that, while sympathising, as I do, with this Amendment, I cannot accept it in this Bill.
This is the last Amendment on the Order Paper, and I should like to thank the Committee for the careful consideration they have given to this Bill. I was, very anxious about this Measure, because some of the remarks that were made tended to arouse a little reaction against, the proposals; but now that the Bill is, safely through the Committee stage, hon. Members on both sides of the House, who have great respect for the Bench of judges
in this country and who sympathise with them in their financial difficulties, will be glad to have helped to bring about this small alleviation in their position.

Mr. Janner: This is an important matter. If the Members of the Committee were to realise the importance of it, they would join with the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), and with those who know something about the procedure in the courts to try to get the position remedied. I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether he would be good enough to reconsider this matter between now and the next stage of the Bill. The stipendiary magistrates in London are performing extremely useful and important duties. Those duties are equally as important as those carried out by the county court judges. In fact, in recent years there has been placed upon the shoulders of the stipendiary magistrates very onerous work connected particularly with matrimonial matters and with the new economic laws.
It is highly essential that we should have the best people that we can possibly get in these offices. To encourage the best men we should place them at least on an equal footing in regard to pensions as the county court judges. Although it is late in the evening, it is important that we should realise our duty towards those people who day by day conduct extremely serious and important jobs such as those carried out by our magistrates. I hope that, in spite of the important points put by the Attorney-General, he will reconsider the position and will try to introduce an Amendment which will put the magistrates on at least the same level as the county court judges for pensions Purposes.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Obviously this is a matter which deserves further consideration. I do not seek to prolong the debate upon it tonight, but I should like to say, in answer to what was said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, that at one stage I shared his anxiety about the progress of this Measure, largely on account of the attitude adopted by the Government.

The Chairman: I allowed the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General to make some complimentary remarks. I gather that other hon. Members now wish to speak. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will confine himself to a few sentences. We really cannot have a general debate on the merits or demerits of the Bill and related matters now.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I was trying to be equally complimentary to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and was merely traversing one of the points he made. I do not think I had gone much beyond it. I am very glad that we have got through the Committee stage today, in spite of the reaction to some of the proposals from hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I do not want to detain the Committee, but I have waited for some time in order to support the Amendment so charmingly moved from the benches opposite. I hope that, between now and the Report stage, the learned Attorney-General will give some consideration to the arguments which have been addressed to him.

The Attorney-General: I realise that this is a point with which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee very naturally have some sympathy. We should have to consider, not only these cases, but the official referees and a number of others. I cannot give any undertaking to do that in this Bill, but I will report to my noble Friend the feeling about this matter and we will give careful consideration to the whole problem.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I had not realised that the official referee had to wait 25 years for his pension. Perhaps the learned Attorney-General will look into that position, which seems to be more intolerable than the cases we are at present discussing.
Amendment negatived.
Schedule agreed to.
Third and Fouth Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill No. 46.]

SOUTH BANK EXHIBITION (CONTINUANCE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Dodds: I believe there is a very great demand for the continuation of the South Bank Exhibition in 1951, and, because of several limiting features, I suggest that, if this is not done, it is inevitable that there will be no end to the number of would-be visitors who will be deprived of seeing the Exhibition, and, what should be of importance to all hon. Members, the bill for the taxpayer will be unnecessarily high. Providing the international conditions permit—and we can only go ahead believing that they will—I am of the opinion that the success of the Exhibition will exceed even the most optimistic predictions. In fact, I think it will be so attractive that on the popular days there will be chaotic conditions in which—
It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed. without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Royle.]

Mr. Dodds: I believe that the Exhibition will be so attractive that on the popular days chaotic conditions will be seen outside what I believe to be, despite its importance, a relatively pocket handkerchief exhibition. I speak with some knowledge of the subject, because for nine years I acted as an exhibitions' manager. During that period I was responsible for planning, erecting, controlling when open to the public, and dismantling over 100 trade exhibitions, some of which were the largest ever seen in this country during that period.
This Exhibition has had, and will continue to have valuable publicity largely through discussions in this House. I know of no advertising genius, even with an unlimited purse, who could be more effective in advertising this Exhibition than hon. Members of this House. In fact, I think that the Lord President and those associated with him should be extremely grateful to the critics—not all of whom wish the Exhibition well—who have done so much to ensure that the

Exhibition will be an outstanding success. I believe, too, from my experience, that there is evidence to indicate that under the present management it could be continued successfully not for one year, but for five years. But I am a reasonable person, and all I am suggesting is that it should be continued for one more year during 1952.
The sponsors of this Exhibition have taken a tremendous risk. They have selected a relatively small site right in the heart of the largest city in the world. In planning exhibitions, there are two important factors to be borne in mind with regard to space; one is to see that the amount of space given over to the exhibits is married with the space allotted for use by the visitors.
In handling visitors there is one important aspect born of years of experience, that if too many people are allowed in a trade exhibition, then the sales decline very sharply. In other words, it is essential for the success of such exhibitions that sufficient elbow room should be allowed to the people visiting them. Although in this South Bank Exhibition it is not a question of sales, except in the restaurants and cafés, there is also the point that there can be no appreciation of the exhibits unless there is plenty of room for the visitors.
I would warn the sponsors that they are on very dangerous ground here because if there is a tendency to allow too many people to enter because of the enormous queues outside or in order to raise the revenue, then there will be shoals of complaints, largely because it is a Government-sponsored Exhibition. In that respect, I believe the complaints would be so effective that the policy would have to be changed very quickly. The authorities estimate that the space allotted will allow 60,000 persons in it at any one time. The estimate also indicates that from 120,000 to 150,000 persons a day are expected. That would allow about 10 million to 121 million persons to visit the Exhibition during the period budgeted for in 1951. I am absolutely certain that those estimates are too optimistic.
Even if these figures are reached, I believe there are quite as many potential visitors to this Exhibition providing certain things are done. The main thing is that it should be extended until 1952. There are two ways in which people will


get into the Exhibition. The first is by the purchase of an advance ticket and the second, later in the day, by admission through the turnstiles. The proposal is that approximately 40,000 advance tickets will be allocated for Tuesdays and approximately 50,000 for other days. This is a manageable proposition. It is when we come to the business of the turnstiles that I believe conditions will be difficult.
On Tuesdays the turnstiles begin to dick after 4 p.m. and on other days after 3 p.m. I believe this is going to cause many headaches. As to the prices of admission, I agree with the Lord President that the Exhibition will be excellent entertainment and full of interest. In other words, it is going to be excellent value even for the prices that are being charged. Yesterday morning I had the opportunity of looking over the site. As one who has seen many exhibitions I was thrilled through and through by what I could see of the possibilities of this Exhibition. Because of its nature I believe it is going to be the finest exhibition the world has ever seen.
When the first few thousands get into the Exhibition they will provide all the publicity needed to bring out every man, woman and child they can possibly get in. But I do not think anyone would deny that there are millions of people, particularly those with families, who, even if they know it is excellent value, will be forced to stay away because of the heavy expense. That can be overcome, but not during the first months of the Exhibition. There could be reduced charges, of course, if the Exhibition is continued for a longer time in 1951, say to October, but, above all, there could be reduced prices to bring in many more millions in 1952.
Admission on opening day is by ticket only, price 10s. On looking through the details about the Exhibition I was surprised to find that every Tuesday the tickets are priced 10s. and the charge of admission through the turnstile is 4s. after 4 p.m. On the remaining days the advance ticket is priced 5s. Admission through the turnstiles is 4s. after 3 p.m. and, of course, it is half-price for children.
In answer to a Question I put to him on, I think, 20th November or possibly earlier, the Lord President said that we were rather lucky to have these prices because at the 1851 Exhibition the charge

for the first two days was one guinea. What he did not say was that within one month of the opening of the 1851 Exhibition the charge from Monday to Thursday was only 1s. It was 2s. 6d. on Fridays and 5s. on Saturdays. The charge on Saturdays was reduced to 2s. 6d. at the beginning of August. I submit, therefore, that this Exhibition can continue to the end of 1952 and that that will allow for millions of people with families and those who cannot afford these high prices, although the Exhibition is excellent value, to go to the Exhibition at reduced prices in 1952.
Anyone who has had any experience of exhibitions must know that the major cost arises from the erection of the exhibition. That will apply to a greater degree with the 1951 Exhibition than with any other exhibition of which I know. The cost of dismantling is the same whether the Exhibition lasts a week or five years, and the cost of keeping it open is relatively small. Therefore, the cost involved in continuing the Exhibition in 1952 is chickenfeed compared with the revenue which would be raised. I think that the revenue factor is important because I cannot see that it will be possible in 1951 to do other than have a very big deficit.
I have previously said that the authorities were estimating much too high when they said they expected to get 120,000 to 150,000 people a day at the Exhibition. I made that point because the limiting factor is not one of getting the people through the turnstiles or the gates into the enclosure but the interesting nature of the exhibits. I went into the Dome of Discovery, and although there are not yet any exhibits there I could have stayed there half an hour or more just looking at the building itself. It is a wonderful building and is well worth seeing for itself.
I am convinced that when the exhibits, of which I have had details, are installed, anyone could stay in that building for hours and enjoy it. The maximum number of people who can get in at any one time is 3,000. Hon. Members will appreciate the difficulty of getting between 120,000 and 150,000 in there each day.
I can detect many similar weaknesses in the Exhibition. The enclosure itself does not give rise to the difficulty. But


take the coalmine, for instance; only a handful can get in at any one time. If it is proposed to let all those people through the gates, there will be disputes and complaints if people, many of whom come a long way, are not able to see the very interesting exhibits in the buildings. I say with every confidence that many people who have the opportunity will go not once but many times, and that will swell the numbers to be catered for on the South Bank.
On 20th November I asked the Lord President of the Council if he would consider continuing the Exhibition in 1952, and he said that he would give the suggestion careful consideration, but he added that he had to keep faith with those who had loaned the sites for the South Bank and other exhibitions including Battersea Park. I am concerned only with the South Bank site, and I would point out that that site not very long ago was just a heap of rubble and some very old property. Who can deny that, but for this Exhibition, probably 10 years would have elapsed before the site was levelled, extended and built on? No one, having seen the original site, could reasonably have expected the Exhibition to be opened in only 12 months. The ground has been extended by over four acres: there is a valuable addition to London of over four acres, particularly in view of the present land values.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I take it that my hon. Friend is advocating the continuation into 1952 not only of the South Bank Exhibition but also the Battersea Park Exhibition?

Mr. Dodds: I have to stick to the things I understand, and I understand exhibitions. There may be others who know all about Battersea Park, but I want to make it clear that I am only putting forward the case for the South Bank Exhibition because I believe there is an overwhelming case for its continuation. I can think of only one worse suggestion, and that was the Parliamentary Committee's suggestion that they should use the Grand Committee room for a History of Parliament during 1951. The estimated attendance was a maximum of 1,500 per day. Never have I heard a more fantastic suggestion. Unless Westminster Hall is used for this Exhibition it would be far better to leave it alone.
A few hours ago a green card was sent to me and I went into the Central Lobby to find what was claimed to be the works committee of the Festival of Britain Exhibition site. They stated that for four days a reporter of the "Sunday Dispatch" has, without authority, been going all over the site endeavouring to unearth discontent among the workers so that in this Sunday's "Sunday Dispatch" they will be able to print an attack on the Festival of Britain. Many of those things must be expected, but the works committee through its chairman, have assured me that, although, as I well understand in exhibition work, there are always disputes—there must be by the nature of the work—the workers on the site, despite little disputes, are 100 per cent. behind the Exhibition. They resent the methods of the reporter in trying to make up a story which cannot be helpful.
But even a reporter like that, even the "Sunday Dispatch"—if it prints the story—is helping to make the people of this country, whether they live in town or hamlet, Festival-minded. I ask the Lord President and those associated with him to have courage and to go ahead and plan for 1952. To the Minister who is to reply I say this: I do not expect any other assurance than that any suggestion will be carefully examined. I ask him that any decision should be made as soon as possible.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) has spoken of the necessity of continuing the South Bank Exhibition for a further year. He said that he had a certain amount of professional experience in the matter of exhibitions and I am sure we all listened to him with very great interest. Later, he said he never spoke about things unless he knew something about them. I must at once admit that I know very little about the South Bank Exhibition, but this point occurred to me—that it would be wiser for the Government to wait a little while before taking their final decision.
If I may express one criticism of the hon. Gentleman's speech, it is that he was rather inclined to over-estimate the number of people who might attend the Exhibition. I should have preferred him to say that, in the light of the experience we gain during next year, we should then


reach a decision about the future. After all, it is quite possible—and we must face this—that, in the present international situation it might not be feasible for the Exhibition to be continued for another year. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree with that. The international situation and all the domestic problems which are bound to arise may easily prevent the vast number of people which the hon. Member mentioned from attending the Exhibition.
I anticipate that this will be the Government's view—that we should wait before we take a decision on the matter. The nation and the London County Council, for whom others in the House are far better fitted to speak than I am, have committed a substantial sum of money to this project. As the hon. Member said, there has been criticism from various quarters of the propriety of holding the Exhibition and the Festival at all. I will not go into that now, for these questions have been discussed and decided already, but I would point out that we as a nation and London as a city have a very large stake in the success or failure of the Exhibition, and if it were to turn out that, during the course of the year, it seemed likely that a loss of a substantial nature would be incurred, then obviously it might be desirable for the Government to say, "We think the Exhibition ought to close, for there is a risk that this deficit, this loss may be increased over the course of the following year."
I appreciate the point that the hon. Member for Dartford made. It was a very good one, namely, that we have to take one year with the next, and that, whereas there may be a loss in the first year, it may be possible in the second year to recoup the loss. Anyway, I suggest that it would be far preferable if this sort of plea that he has made tonight were made a little closer to the time when the country will have had a little more experience of the running of the Exhibition, because if indeed it is going to be, as some have thought likely, a sort of hole through which public money drops at a very fast rate, I am sure that the hon. Member himself and the nation as a whole would wish to stop that leak as quickly as possible.
The position now is, as I see it, that the nation is committed to this South Bank

Exhibition and Festival. Those of us who, from time to time, have had reason to criticise the holding of the Exhibition and Festival at all, now come to the position that a decision has been taken, and that we cannot do anything to reverse the decision. The nation is committed and the money is provided. Therefore, I think it rests with all of us to make the Exhibition the best we can, and I am certain that I speak for the great majority of hon. and right hon. Members on these benches when I say that. I, for one, for example, would certainly deprecate anything in the nature of inquiries being made, as the hon. Member suggested, by newspapers to try to find out if there are sources of discontent.
On the whole, my own personal view is that this Exhibition may turn out to be a great success, in which case everyone who has had anything to do with it will be able to take the credit; or it may turn out to be a failure. We do not know. Time will tell us. I think that in any event the decision whether or not the Exhibition should continue for a second year ought to be taken by the Government a little later on and not just now. I quite appreciate the point of the hon. Member for Dartford in raising this matter now, and that he wanted, to use an old adage, to get his blow in first. If in due course the decision is taken to extend the Exhibition for a further year, a certain amount of credit will redound to the hon. Member for Dartford, and whereas the Lord President of the Council may be called "Lord Festival," some more regal title may have to be found for the hon. Member for Dartford.
That is, I think, the view of hon. Members on this side of the House, and I think that when the Under-Secretary of State for Air, who I believe is to reply to the debate, makes his reply, he will agree with the expression of view which I have been permitted to put before the House.

10.23 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Crawley): My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds), who opened the debate, said that he had managed nine exhibitions.

Mr. Dodds: A hundred.

Mr. Crawley: That is even better—or worse, whichever way one looks at it.


I am afraid I must say I have had no such experience. The only reason why I have been asked to reply to this debate tonight is that those who are concerned with the air know no limits to their interest. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will take that as my reason for speaking in this debate tonight.
I am sure the House and the country are grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. I think it is a little ironic that our differences of view in this House in the last week or two—which, of course, have not been differences on party lines at all—about how the Exhibition should be run have brought home to us and the country—I think, perhaps, for the first time—the real responsibility of every one of us in this great national Exhibition; and I think that we are more united than we have ever been as the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), said, in our determination to make it a success. It is quite obvious that it is in that spirit that my hon. Friend said all the very useful and helpful things he did say.
I must say that I do share his faith in the success of the Exhibition. I did not know very much about it until I knew that I was to reply to this debate tonight; but I have since visited the site, and not only that, but I have read a good deal about the Exhibition; and the more I read of it, and the more I see of it, the more I agree with him that it is going to be a most fascinating Exhibition, though I must say that the fascination, particularly on the South Bank, is not of the modern, sensational kind, but rather of the deeper kind.
My hon. Friend asked that the Exhibition should be continued into 1952, and he based his request really on three points. The first was that the space on which the Exhibition stands, particularly on the South Bank, is small and that a lot of people who would like to see the Exhibition will not be able to do so. I quite agree that the space is small, though I do not think it is quite as small as he makes out. I fancy that he may be exaggerating the difficulties that people will have. For instance, I was interested to notice that the area for the 1851 Exhibition was only 20 acres, yet every day some 42,000 people were able to get there and to get into the Exihibition, with apparently enough comfort to make it a great success.

Mr. Dodds: Has my hon. Friend considered the increase in population since that time, which was 100 years ago?

Mr. Crawley: I was not referring to the total figures. I was referring to the number within that acreage. A rather larger proportion of people were able to get in than my hon. Friend implied would be possible at this Exhibition. I would remind my hon. Friend that in those days ladies wore crinolines and the gentlemen carried things like umbrellas, and occupied very much more space than people do now. No doubt they were assisted in not becoming crowded by the fact that they were neither allowed to take in dogs, nor to drink alcohol, nor to smoke. The figures my hon. Friend gave—which I am sure are official figures in so far as it is possible to make estimates—may be on the conservative side. If, in fact, 12½ million or more people see the Exhibition—and all those in charge seem confident that they could cater for that number—it will be a very considerable success.
My hon. Friend then went on to say that he was worried about the finances, and he thought that a second year would make a great difference to the financial position. It is obviously true that the capital outlay for an Exhibition of this kind is a very great deal to expect to recoup entirely in one year. It is equally obvious that if it is a great success and we could run it for a second year, that would probably have a very beneficial effect on the finances.

Mr. Dodds: And would reduce prices at the same time.

Mr. Crawley: That, again, would depend partially on the sort of demand which existed. I would only add that, in judging the financial success of an Exhibition of this kind an enormous number of things have to be taken into consideration. It is not merely the amount taken at the turnstiles. There is all the indirect benefit to be got out of the millions of visitors who bring money into the country and spend it elsewhere, and the direct benefit that we hope to get in trade and business in a great number of fields. Therefore, to take the very narrow view that only the sum obtained at the turnstiles, or in advance bookings, indicates the success of the Exhibition, would be quite wrong.
I end on the main point, whether it would be possible to say anything in the near future—because my hon. Friend asked that my right hon. Friend should try to take his decision as early as possible—about carrying on for another year. I do not think it is possible, or likely to be possible, to give any indication now, or until the Exhibition itself has been going for some time. It is obvious to everybody that the world situation, as the hon. Member for Henley said, is incalculable, to put it no stronger, and it would be unwise to start making plans of that kind at this moment. This all depends, surely, on the extent of the demand when the Festival itself is running. If that demand is so strong that everybody feels and I do not think it would be very difficult to take account of it—that the Exhibition should go on, I have no doubt

that the matter will be considered with an open mind at that time.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: It is quite clear that my hon. Friend has gone as far as he possibly could, but I hope that he and the Lord President will take note of the fact that there is a widespread desire that this Festival should be a success, and a very widespread hope, certainly in London and possibly throughout the country, that it should be continued for another year.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.